What Do You Want From a Bible Translation?

I think, for most of us, the answer is obvious: we want an understandable translation that is faithful to the original textual witnesses.

A Bible translation is not helpful or useful if it can’t be read and understood. Nor is a Bible translation helpful or useful if it veers away from what the original authors of Scripture actually wrote. We want something that can be understood when we read it, and something that doesn’t make us wonder where it came from.

It’s hard to overstate how good we’ve got it in the English speaking world when it comes to Bible translations. You can go to www.biblegateway.com right now and choose from around 60 different translations. Almost all of which fit what I’m assuming is our shared expectation for a translation. This cannot be said for any other language in the world. The wild thing is that with these amazing options at our hands, we can become picky, start to worry, and sometimes become paralyzed from just making a decision and reading.

Peter Gurry, of the Text & Canon Institute, wrote a helpful article on where this pickiness, worry, and paralyzing feeling comes from. It’s worth looking into and considering for yourself because, if you’re anything like me, you’ve thought once or twice about the translation you read and whether or not there’s a better one out there. You might have even had someone point out something in your translation or in another that’s caused you to wonder if you’d be better served by reading a different one.

This was one of the reasons why I took several years to study Greek and Hebrew. I found myself wondering again, and again, if the translation or translations I was reading were the best. What I learned in my limited time in Greek and Hebrew was that it was the wrong question from the start. And you and I both know, if we start by asking the wrong question, we’re bound to come up with a wrong answer.

Instead of trying to find the “best” translation, I slowly started to believe that I was far better off just picking one, or two, or three, and appreciating each of them for what they each do well, while being gracious to them for those places where they bothered me. It’s honestly hard to find an overtly bad translation—they’re out there, to be sure, but you have to look for them. Whether you’re reading the ESV, NIV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, NASB, NRSV, CSB, LEB, NET, etc., you’re more than likely going to find a translation that is understandable and faithful to what was originally written. What you’ll also find, though, are the differences between even really good translations.

We know that the ESV is not like the NIV. And the NIV is not like the KJV. And the KJV is not like the NLT. The differences are obvious. The question for us, though, when it comes to what we want from a translation, is: What differences actually make a difference? It might be helpful for us to look at just two passages for an example of what I’m talking about.

In Luke 7, we have a story about a woman “who lived a sinful life” crying over the feet of Jesus and wiping his tear soaked feet with her hair. Jesus, makes a comment on this situation to those around him, saying, “…I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little…Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Lk 7:48, 50, NIV) Remember that bolded portion of the verse.

Later in Luke 8, we have a story about a sick woman coming to Jesus in a crowd of people being able to just touch the edge of his cloak. Jesus knew that something had happened after the woman touched him— “…I know that power has gone out from me.” (Lk 8:46b, NIV)—and the woman’s sickness ceased. Jesus, commenting on the situation, said, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.” (Lk 8:48b, NIV) Again, the bolded portion is what we’ll be looking at closely.

In these two passages there are stories of a person’s faith doing something for them. In the first story from Luke 7, the woman’s faith saved her, while in the story from Luke 8, the woman’s faith healed her. No big deal, right? Right. That is, until you consider the underlying Greek text from these two passages.

In Luke 7:50, the Greek word underlying the English translation—has saved you—is σέσωκέν (sesoken). In Luke 8:48, the Greek word underlying the English translation—has healed you—is σέσωκέν (sesoken). You didn’t just misread anything. It’s the same Greek word, but with two different English translations. Now, depending on your preference for an English translation, you either like what is happening here or it bothers you (even if you aren’t quite sure what’s going on).

The two Greek words from Luke 7:50 and 8:48 are both built on the word, σῴζω (sozo). Now, sozo generally means to save, and that’s how it’s often translated. But, there are more than a few times in the New Testament where translating sozo as to save might not quite get the actual meaning across. Of all the Bible translations I regularly use, I’m only able to find a couple that translate both Luke 7:50 and 8:48 the same way with has saved you, because context determines translation, and translations determines interpretation.

We’ve already seen that the contexts for Luke 7:50 and 8:48 although similar (both stories have a woman coming to Jesus and Jesus saying something about their faith) are not the same. In the first, the context is about forgiveness of sins, while the second is about the healing of a sickness. Because of the different contexts most translators have made the decision to translate the first use of sozo as has saved you and the second as some version of has healed you.

There are folks out there who advocate for translating both passages with the same has saved you translation, which then allows the reader to make the interpretive decision that these two has saved you statements aren’t really talking about the same thing even though the same words are being used. This reasoning makes sense to me. Some would rather have their translation keep those types of linguistic connections more visible on the page.

There are other folks out there who advocate for translating the passages differently with has saved you and has healed you, which makes it clear to the reader that the contexts, although similar, are quite different and should be interpreted differently. This reasoning makes sense to me, as well. Some would rather have their translation reflect the interpretive choices based on the contextual situations of each story on the page.

So coming back to our earlier question—What differences actually make a difference?—and the overall question—What do we want from a Bible translation?—I think we can give some answers.

To the first question about the differences, we can for sure say that differences abound in different translations; however, what I think we’ll find again, and again, as we actually read different solid translations, is that the majority of those differences really don’t make a difference to you and I being able to understand what we’re reading and trusting that the text isn’t being messed with. In short, if you’re anxious about translations, you can relax. The good ones are there if you want them.

To the second question about what we want from Bible translations, we can rejoice that our expectations are being met. And they’re not just being met once or twice, they’re being met over, and over, and over again by faithful translators all over the English speaking world who want nothing more than folks like you and I to be able to read the Bible for ourselves to know the God who is revealed in the pages of the Bible as the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ.

God has done an amazing thing with the gift of these translations, and the shame would be if we were too busy driving ourselves crazy with the options out there that we never received and enjoyed the gifts God has given. So, enjoy them by understanding and trusting whatever translation you pick up and read.

Who Will Save Us?

A MIRACLE ON THE HUDSON

The movie, Sully, is about the real life event of when Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger safely landed a commercial aircraft on the Hudson River after losing both engines from a bird strike shortly after takeoff. Throughout the movie the NTSB (the National Transportation Safety Board) had been investigating the water landing to determine if Sully had actually made a mistake by going for the Hudson when he could have—and, as they thought, should have—headed for a nearby airport. They run simulations, look at the black box data, and speak with scientists who are experts in birds.

At the end of the movie, it becomes obvious to everyone involved—including the NTSB—that the right decision was made, and it was only because of that decision that everyone on the aircraft was saved. In all of their research into what happened and how it could have been resolved—in other words, their focus on finding the how—they missed the most important detail—the who.

This is summed up beautifully in a statement made at the end of the movie. One of the NTSB officials says to Sully, “I can say with absolute confidence that after speaking with the rest of the flight crew, with bird experts, aviation engineers, after running through every scenario, after interviewing each player, there is still an ‘X’ in this result. And it’s you, Captain Sullenberger. Remove you from the equation and the math just fails.”

Sometimes the who is more important than the how.

THE SON OF MAN CAME TO SAVE

In Luke 19:1-10 we’re told that Jesus entered Jericho but had in mind to keep moving through. Zacchaeus, who was not just a tax collector, but a chief tax collector—a very rich man—wanted to see for himself who this Jesus was, but he had a problem. You probably know what his problem was if you know the song. He was wee little man and couldn’t see over the crowd. So, what did he do? He, of course, ran on ahead of Jesus and climbed a tree to get a better look.

When Jesus caught up to Zacchaeus he said, “Come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” Zacchaeus got right down from that tree and welcomed Jesus gladly. The crowd, however, didn’t respond in the same way, because they couldn’t help but see that Jesus was not going to have dinner at just anyone’s house. He was going to be the guest of a sinner.

Zacchaeus, maybe even thinking along the same line for a moment said to Jesus, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” He knew this was a serious thing for Jesus to have called him from the tree and to have invited himself to his house. To which Jesus responded, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.” Jesus wasn’t going to allow the crowd’s thinking (and perhaps Zacchaeus’s own thinking) to cloud what was happening before their very eyes.

Jesus continued—and this is where things get real for our discussion here—by saying, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Sometimes the who is more important than the how.

JESUS IS SALVATION

The main reason the aircraft made a safe water landing was not because all the right decisions were made. It wasn’t even because the aircraft was built in such a way to allow that sort of landing to be possible. It was because of the person who flew that aircraft. In a similar way, it’s not mainly because of the cross that anyone is saved today. Nor is it mainly because of what was accomplished by the one who was placed upon the cross. Forgive me as I just took a second to make sure my hair wasn’t starting to stand on end. If anyone at any point in time was or is going to be saved, it was and is because of the one doing the saving—Jesus.

Notice what he specifically said to Zacchaeus. “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9, NIV). Jesus not only identified himself as the one who is going to be accomplishing the saving work: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10, NIV), he identified himself as salvation incarnate.

When anyone in Jesus’s day saw him walking around, it was as if they were watching salvation walk around. Everything that salvation was and is, was and is contained in Jesus. Said the other way, take Jesus out of salvation and salvation no longer exists. Remove him from the equation of salvation and the math doesn’t work.

Simeon, earlier in Luke’s Gospel, when he took the baby Jesus into his arms says it clearly: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32, NIV)

What Must I Do to Be Saved?

THE THEOLOGY OF ‘GHOST’

Podcasts are the best.

I especially like listening to The Rewatchables, which is a podcast where a group of 2-4 people discuss their favorite “rewatchable” movies.

During the last episode I listened to they were talking about Ghost. (A movie I haven’t seen before… I know, I know, I should make it a point to watch it.) Since the movie is about someone’s loved one being killed and then returning as a ghost it didn’t take long for the conversation to come to a discussion about the afterlife. Specifically, the discussion was on what type of people “go to heaven” and what type of people “go to hell.” The consensus between the hosts on that episode was that if you at least live a decent life—and don’t murder anyone—you’ll go to heaven.

If you know me at all, I can’t let that go.

GOOD PEOPLE GO TO HEAVEN, BAD PEOPLE GO TO HELL?

In all fairness to the hosts who (by their own admission) are not beholden to any sort of biblical theology, they badly misunderstand the way in which the New Testament authors speak to us about the reality of the afterlife, and the means by which those realities will be experienced. Again, in all fairness to them, they have done little more than grab on to what we might call the pop theology of our day, which runs something like this: Good people go to heaven because they’re good and bad people go to hell because they’re bad. What or who determines whether a person is good or bad is largely up for debate but, in the end, it’s our deeds here that determine our destiny there.

To come back to where that previous paragraph began… that sort of belief may be widely held today (even among many Christians) but it is in no way friends with the testimony of the New Testament texts—one in particular that will be our focus for this article.

AN EXERCISED WOMAN

Shortly (and I use that word in a relative sense) after the conversion of Paul, he, Luke, Silas, and some others were traveling around telling people about the good news of Jesus Christ—they were preaching about the kingdom of God. One day they ran into this woman who had a spirit which allowed her to predict the future. As you can imagine, she made bank because everyone wants to know their future. For some reason she followed Paul and his friends shouting, “These men are servants of the most high God, who are telling you the way to be saved!” She was relentless. Her shouting lasted for days. At some point Paul had enough of it and commanded that the spirit in her come out, which it did.

Good for the woman, right? Sort of.

WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?

She was no longer being tormented by this “future-telling spirit,” and she was no longer making money for the people who owned her—she was a slave—and they didn’t like that one bit. Her owners were so upset that they dragged Paul and Silas into the marketplace so something could be done with them. A crowd gathered and they joined in on the attack and the authorities decided that they were to be stripped, beaten with rods, and thrown into prison. So, to prison they went.

Paul and Silas, being who they were, were praying and singing hymns to God in prison and all the other prisoners were listening to them. All of a sudden, in the middle of their praying and signing, a violent earthquake shook the foundations of the prison, and all the doors flew open and everyone’s chains came loose. The jailer—who was the one put in charge of making sure none of the prisoners escaped—woke up, saw that the doors were open and that their chains were off, and thought it best to kill himself rather than face the fury of his Roman bosses. Before he could do so, Paul shouted to him, “Don’t harm yourself! We’re all here!” At this the jailer fell trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas and asked them, “What must I do to be saved?”

What would you have said to the jailer?

Well, if you want to be saved, you must live a good life, so you need to take stock of your life immediately. You need to find out whether or not you’ve lived a life worthy of heaven. If you haven’t you need to make a change immediately, because you know it’s only the good who get through heaven’s doors.

Of course, you wouldn’t say that… I hope you wouldn’t say that.

Live a good life and you’ll get to heaven is a recipe for disaster. Live a good life according to whom—according to what? Your standard? My standard? God’s standard? Do we each get to decide for ourselves what “good enough” is? What if I think I’ve lived a pretty good life, but you think I’ve messed up in big way in a few areas? Who decides between us?

Thank God for what Paul and Silas said.

BELIEVE IN THE LORD JESUS

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:31, NIV). There it is. How was the jailer going to be saved? By believing in the Lord Jesus. How were his household—his parents, wife, and children—going to be saved? By be believing in the Lord Jesus. And how are you and I going to be saved? Well, you see, we think we have a better understanding than Paul and Silas who lived in a much more primitive time. In order to be saved you need to be a good person. No! The answer remains the same: Believe in the Lord Jesus.

Believe.
Trust.
Give your allegiance not to an idea, not a pie in the sky hope, not a modern day invention of how we measure good and bad. Not even for a second.

If you want to be saved, place your faith in the only person who is able, and not only able, but the only person who made salvation possible. Place your faith in the only person who made salvation a reality. Place your faith in the only person who, after all the rejection he experienced by a world he came to save, held out his arms and said if you come to me, I will have you.

That’s the message Paul and Silas had for a 1st-Century jailer, and it’s the same message we have for a 21st-Century world. It doesn’t have to be more complicated than that. Sure, we can talk about how belief ought to come with a change in how we live our lives, but that is a different discussion. Not an unimportant discussion—just a different discussion.

We must have an answer for the one who asks what they need to do to be saved, and our answer does not have to be any more complicated than believe in the Lord Jesus.

Passion Week: Friday - The Beginning of the End

Scripture Reading: Luke 22:47-53; Mark 14:60-64; Luke 23:39-43

If the beginning of the end wasn’t when Jesus rode into Jerusalem as a king, it most assuredly was when Judas brought a crowd to arrest him. From that point forward Jesus would no longer walk freely throughout the land with his disciples. From here on out he’d be bound, either by chains or by nails to a cross.

One of the more gut-wrenching moments of this arrest story is the way Jesus asks Judas what’s going on. He asks not because he’s confused, but (I think) in mercy to extend another opportunity for Judas to turn from his wickedness. “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” In other words, Is this really want you want to do, Judas? You’ve been with me for years and now, tonight, you’re going to hand me over? It’s hard not to scream out STOP! while reading this story.

Judas doesn’t need to do what he’s doing. He’s being fueled by a misunderstanding of who Jesus was and a misunderstanding of how the kingdom of God was going to come about. Judas wanted the rewards of following Jesus, which is fine—we want the rewards, too. The problem is those rewards weren’t coming for Judas—and they’re not coming for us—until the New Heavens and New Earth. When we try to get now, what we’re going to get later through trusting Jesus, we always hurt ourselves and the world around us.

After Jesus had been arrested he was brought before the officials—both religious and state—to proceed with a trial and eventual pronouncement of guilt and punishment (which had basically already been decided). Before that pronouncement of guilt the high priest got angry with Jesus because he wouldn’t defend himself. Finally he asks him plainly, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” To this question Jesus says what will ultimately secure his death. “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

This is Daniel 7 language. This is language that you only use if you are the Christ—the Messiah. This is language that makes it clear that you believe yourself to be the king of the world—Yahweh. And this is language, that when used by Jesus—although it is absolutely true—brings an end to any supposed hope of him escaping a sentence of death by crucifixion. “Why do we need any more witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy.”

And that’s where we find Jesus next. Upon a cross, in between two criminals. One who hurls insults at him, demanding Jesus rescue himself and the criminals. And the other who rebukes the first, pleading with Jesus to not forget him when Jesus is received in his kingdom. To which—and this might be one of the most astonishing moments of this entire story so far—Jesus, with one of his last moments of his life here on earth, does not ignore the criminal who is rightly condemned by the state, but answers him saying, “…today you will be with me in paradise.”

This is Jesus. This is who he is and who has always been. He spent his life loving others and in one of his last—seemingly insignificant—moments of his life, he loved someone to the uttermost.

The end of Passion week is not yet. Easter is approaching, but there is a day in-between—Saturday—which we will turn to next.

Passion Week: Wednesday - The Scheme

Scripture Reading: Luke 22:1-6

What do you do with a person who says and does things that invite others to believe that he is not only the king, but God in the form of a human being? If you don’t like his message of kingship and divinity, you come up with a plan to end all this nonsense by getting rid of him.

This was the state of the world (the world of Jerusalem) a few days before the Passover. According to Luke, “..the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus”. At the least, they wanted him elsewhere. Better yet, they wanted him gone completely. If some revolutionary was trying to start something new in Rome, fine, but this was Jerusalem. And this “revolutionary” was starting something new that would forever turn upside down the world in which the chief priests and the teachers of the law lived, moved, and had their being. In other words, again as Luke puts it, “they were afraid.”

What were they going to do when it seemed like the whole world was going along with this Jesus the world was happy to call not just the Messiah, but their Messiah? Luckily for them, an opportunity presented itself in the form of a betrayal. This betrayal played out as Judas going to the chief priests, and the officers of the temple guard, to discuss with them how he might hand Jesus over to them.

The scheme is set, as it would seem. This “would-be” Messiah will finally get what’s coming to him.

Someone from within Jesus’s own group has turned his back on him. Maybe Jesus wasn’t so powerful after all? Either way, the religious leaders have now found their way forward. They have this Judas—who had been having a growing problem with how Jesus was doing things for some time—decide that it would be better to put an end to this, as well. “They were delighted and agreed to give him money.” Thirty pieces of silver, as we find out later.

Judas consents, takes the money, and spends the rest of his time “watching for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.” All Judas needed was a brief moment when it was just him, Jesus, and—if there was no way around it—Jesus’s disciples. Then he’d have the freedom to move forward. Then he could betray his “friend” by handing him over to people who didn’t have the authority to take Jesus’s life on their own, but would consort with the Roman government—who they didn’t even trust and, more than likely, really grew to resent—to have them take care of Jesus for the religious leaders.

This is the result of being hailed as a king as you enter Jerusalem. This is the result of going to the temple and cleaning up the mess. And this is the result of healing those in a way only God could.

Jesus’s time was drawing short, and it would only take an arrest under the cover of darkness to bring everything to a point of no return.

Translate That!

It just needs a little elbow grease.

If you are a native English speaker, you know exactly what that means. You are not wondering if it is even possible to grease up an elbow. The phrase sounds normal to you, and you know that basically what was said was: Some hard work is needed.

What if, however, you were trying to explain to your non-native English speaking friend what was said? How would you go about translating it?

You could, as an option, choose to translate it strictly, in a word-for-word format. You could take each word and find its closes counterpart in whatever language you were translating into. And, hopefully, once you have done that—provided there were not many big grammatical hurdles—you’d have a pretty faithful translation of what It just needs a little elbow grease means in another language.

Or, as another option, you could choose to translate the sentence loosely, in a thought-for-thought format. You could take the “idea” of the sentence and bring that same idea into the other language without worrying too much about matching up the particular words. And then, hopefully, you have a sentence in the other language that, although it does not match all the words from English, still gets across the same idea.

The question that is always asked, however, is: What option is best—word-for-word or thought-for-thought?

This is the trouble with translation, and it happens time and time again in the Bible.

Bible translators have given all of their adult years to doing the best they can at faithfully translating the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text of the Scriptures into whatever language they are working on. And, still, there are places where their choices (for any number of reasons) do not seem make the most sense. That is not a slam against the work of the translators; it is just a reality because of the tremendous difficulty of the job.

I have come to find that if I can just have a peek into the work that the translators are doing, I am much more willing to appreciate and respect their results (i.e., the many English translations of the Bible available to us). So, I would like to offer a peek to you with the hope that you would grow in your appreciation and respect of their results, too.

Look, with me, at a short phrase in the New Testament. In Luke 9:44, he writes this in Greek: Θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους.

What in the world does that mean?

The interesting thing with this Greek phrase is that there is an idiom in there (like the English one we looked at earlier); one that English speakers do not use. The Greek phrase, strictly speaking, is you all put these words into your ears. Now, we can probably figure out what is meant by that phrase. The question for us is: How should Θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους it be translated?

One option is to go for a stricter translation, translating it into basically what was just written (you all put these words into your ears). The benefit of this translation is that we have kept that original Greek phrase in-tact as much as possible. The Greek phrase talked about an action of the people (you all put), an object of that action (these words), and a goal of that action (into your ears). It would seem that little to nothing is lost in translating it that way. But is that the message Luke intended to get across? Did he really mean to have people put something in their ears? Of course not. And here is where the second option becomes available—and, perhaps, even beneficial.

Taking the same exact original Greek phrase, you could just as easily translate into something like take these words to heart, all of you. As English speakers, we know what is meant by that phrase. There is no ambiguity with it. But there is no mention of taking in the Greek. Neither is there any mention of heart in the Greek. What we have now is an English translation from Greek where two words that are not originally found are present in the translation. This could be a great cause of concern for some. In some eyes, that was not a translation choice; it was a translation manipulation…and it was probably malevolent.

What can we do?

The short answer is: examine and trust. The longer answer is: take advantage of the wealth of English translations available to us.

And, by “take advantage” I mean, read and compare them to one another. Come to the translations on their own terms, not getting upset with them because they are not what you wanted them to be.

The NIV does not read like the KJV and that is not the fault of the NIV because it was never the intention of the NIV to sound like the KJV. Let them be what they are. Examine them for yourself and then after you have done your work and you are satisfied with your understanding, trust the work of the translators.

I say “trust” because trust does not always mean agree. It means you recognize and accept the way in which a particular group of translators have translated the Bible. Then you have the freedom to either agree or disagree (i.e., read and approve of what they have translated or set it aside).

There are times to have major concerns over a Bible translation. But, taken as a whole, those times are few and far between. In the meantime, let us be thankful to God that he has not left us without a witness. He has blessed us with readable and, more importantly, understandable translations of the Bible.

The trouble with translation is that it is an almost impossible task. No translation will ever make everyone happy. But that does not mean good work has not been done. It most assuredly has, and we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we do not take advantage of that good work.

Go ahead and translate that!

Luke 9:44 Translation Examples:
New International Version (NIV): Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you.
New Living Translation (NLT): Listen to me and remember what I say.
English Standard Version (ESV): Let these words sink into your ears.
King James Version (KJV): Let these sayings sink down into your ears.
New American Standard Bible (NASB): As for you, let these words sink into your ears.
Christian Standard Bible (CSB): Let these words sink in.
Good News Translation (GNT): Don't forget what I am about to tell you!
New English Translation (NET): Take these words to heart.
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): Let these words sink into your ears.

Certainty With Uncertainty in the Biblical Text: Luke 23:34

When we think of Jesus, forgiveness is usually one of the first topics to come to mind.

Forgiveness is so closely tied to Jesus that any understanding of forgiveness outside the person of Jesus Christ does not make sense. To put it another way, if Jesus were not who he said he was, you and I would still be searching for something that could reconcile us to God—we would be searching forever never finding that reconciliation. Therefore, it is no surprise that we like to find places within the New Testament where forgiveness and Jesus are intimately bound together.

We do not have to think for long before verses like Ephesians 4:32, Colossians 3:13, 1 John 2:1, and Mark 2:10-11 to come to mind. If there is one message to be received from the New Testament writings it is that forgiveness has been offered in God’s son. And it’s difficult to find a verse or two hitting that idea more on the head than:

“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” (Mk 2:10, LEB).

It makes perfect sense then that Luke 23:34 would be one of those forgiveness verses we would like to hold securely.

In the larger story of Luke 23 we find the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and then, ultimately, the words spoken in verse 34:

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” (Lk 23:34, LEB)

And the church resoundingly responds, “Amen…and forgive us, too, for what we do not know we are doing!”

And, we do say, “amen,” to the truth that Jesus forgives those who put him to death. The tricky thing, though, with this particular verse is that there is good reason to believe Luke never wrote it. There is pretty strong evidence showing a lack of representation in the earliest discovered manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke.

It is no surprise, then, that as we consult the most up to date critical Greek New Testaments (Nestle-Aland 28thEdition and UBS 5th Edition)—as I happen to have open in front of me right now—verse 34 is double bracketed in the texts of both of those editions. A quick look to the definitions in the critical apparatus explains that texts with double brackets means that “the enclosed words, generally of some length, are known not to be a part of the original text. These texts derive from a very early stage of the tradition, and have often played a significant role in the history of the church.” (NA28) The UBS5 states basically the same thing, saying that although he wording of verse 34 is certain, it is well known that the verse does not exist in the early manuscripts.

It must be said, for clarity’s sake, what these critical editions of the New Testament are not saying. They are not saying that the scholars who have worked on these editions over the years do not like Luke 23:34. There is no bias here. There is, instead, a strict adherence to the discovered manuscript evidence at hand. And that discovered evidence shows a lack of representation for this particular statement from Jesus on the cross.

As a way to account for this lack of evidence, many have argued that the reason this statement from Jesus is not found in the earliest manuscripts is because it was purposefully removed due to an ancient and intense, antisemitic bias. The argument goes something like this: The earliest readers of this gospel did not like the idea of Jesus forgiving the Jewish leaders—those who were bent on doing anything they could to stop him—so they simply took that statement out. The Jews didn’t like Jesus, so we have made sure he didn’t extend forgiveness to them. On the face of it, it is makes sense; however, I am not sure it holds up even within the text itself.

If Luke really did record Jesus saying this then it would seem as though he was extending forgiveness (in this case) not to the Jewish leaders, but to the Roman soldiers. “And when they came (ἦλθον) to the place that is called “The Skull,” there they crucified (ἐσταύρωσαν) him…” (Lk 23:33a). Here, the they in question is not the Jewish leaders but the Romans soldiers who actually put Jesus on the cross. And then we have the verse in question: “But Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them (αὐτοῖς)…” (Lk 23:34a) It seems to me that the them and they in verse 34 are reaching back to verse 33 where, again, it is not the Jewish leaders in mind, but the Roman soldiers.

What is more likely to me is that since Luke wrote both this gospel and Acts, a scribe (or scribes) years later who was copying this gospel and Acts did not like the idea of Stephen acting seemingly more forgiving than Jesus. In Acts 7, after Stephen had given his defense, those who heard him drove him out of the city and began to stone him. And then we find these words from Stephen recorded by Luke: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” (Ac 7:60a) It does not take much imagination to think of some scribe thinking, “Surely Jesus must say something on par with this from Stephen!” And, so, we have, although quite early, the addition of Luke 23:34. 

What all this tells us, I think, is that the “forgiveness prayer” by Jesus—though, extremely consistent with the person of Jesus—does not look like it really came from the original author of Luke’s gospel.

Does this mean confidence in this gospel has been shaken? Absolutely not! The beautiful thing is that we are able to track the evidence in these situations, which does nothing more than bring us closer to the original words.

Does this mean we will have to adjust what we once believed about the words in the Gospel of Luke? Perhaps. But, again, this is not cause for concern, because it is always a blessing to be able to change our minds in accordance with the truth, rather than holding onto something untrue just because it is comfortable to us.

We want to know what Luke wrote, not what a later scribe thought Luke should have written. And, from the evidence we have, Luke did not write Luke 23:34.

A Moment on the Scriptures: The Order of the Hebrew Scriptures

In what order were the Hebrew Scriptures originally put together?

Historical Hebrew manuscripts abound and are really helpful for getting back to the original order of the ancient Hebrew texts, but it may come as a surprise to some that the order we have received the Old Testament books comes not from the most ancient Hebrew witnesses, but from an updated Greek ordering.

The fourfold division based on the Greek ordering consists of (1) the Pentateuch (or the first five books), (2) the historical books, (3) the poetic books, and (4) the prophets consisting of the major and minor prophets.

It needs to be said that there’s nothing wrong with ordering the books this way. It doesn’t take away from anything they say, nor does it obscure some important biblical truths.

That being said, this isn’t the original order of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Originally, the order would have been threefold—(1) the Torah (or the instructions or law, (2) the Nevi’im (or the prophets) consisting of the former and latter prophets, and then (3) the Ketuvim (or the writings or psalms).

The cool thing is that we can see this order being referenced by Jesus in the New Testament. In Luke 24:44 Jesus says, “…everything that is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled.” It seems Jesus was comfortable referencing the Hebrew order as a way to encapsulate then entirety of the Old Testament storyline, even though the Greek order was available.

So, are we reading the Old Testament in the order it was originally put together? It doesn’t look like it. But even though the order is often different, the texts remain the same.

Can You Really Trust Luke to Tell a True Story?

It doesn’t take long to see how people’s memories (short-term or long-term) aren’t always the most reliable.

Ask ten people what happened thirty-minutes after a car accident and you’d really have to do some work to determine what actually took place. Did the driver of the red truck run the stop sign or was it actually the blue sedan driver’s fault that caused the crash in the intersection? There would probably be eyewitnesses arguing over the colors of vehicles involved. It wasn’t a blue sedan, it was a green sedan!

What do we do, then, when it comes to the gospels and their supposed “eyewitness testimony”? Can we trust them?

Some say absolutely not. The fact that these stories are put together through the memories of folks who witnessed certain things being done and said by Jesus doesn’t make any of them true.

I, however, have a different opinion on the matter.

It makes a difference to me whether or not the writers of the gospels were concerned to get the stories right or just to tell a good story. There’s no doubt that the stories are compelling and fascinating, but that means very little if the authors didn’t care to get the details correct.

Luke, whoever he was, is helpful here.

He almost certainly authored both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Two distinct stories that revolved around the person of Jesus and how he changed the world. Interestingly, both writings are dedicated to the same person: Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). And, in the gospel, Luke makes at least two things clear: 1) his purpose for writing and 2) the care he took in putting the stories together. Two things that can help us trust him as he tells these stories.

The first: his purpose in writing. Luke writes, “it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4, ESV).

Luke is straightforward with his purpose. He wrote his gospel because it seemed good to him. And it seemed good to him because he had been following these things (Jesus’ life and all that came along with it) closely. Therefore, Luke wrote an orderly account. Note that. Luke didn’t just write an account of what took place; he wrote and orderly account. That goes a long way to show us his motivation and the care he took in bringing this gospel to life.

Luke also says that he wrote his gospel for Theophilus so that he would have certainty concerning the things he had been taught. Theophilus had known some of these Jesus stories because he had been taught them, and Luke wants him to be confident in what he has been taught. In other words, Luke wants Theophilus to be know that he has been told the truth.

The second thing Luke makes clear: he spoke with many eyewitnesses to get the stories correct. Luke writes, “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us” (Luke 1:1-2, ESV).

Luke says that many people have taken it upon themselves to put together stories about the life of Jesus and the impact he had on the world. This was not a novel thing Luke was stepping into. However, Luke being motivated by accuracy, was driven to consult with many people who saw Jesus say and do things. He didn’t just try his best to remember what Jesus said; he went and talked to the people who heard him and he put their stories together in a way that told the greater story accurately. He spoke with people who had a vested interest in getting these stories right: ministers of the word.

It’s sometimes said that you can’t trust the gospels because they were written by people who liked Jesus, so they told their stories in such a way as to make sure everyone would like him. If that meant putting words in his mouth, taking words out of his mouth, or changing the responses of the people who saw and heard him, then so be it.

I, for one, don’t think that argument is as compelling as some make it seem.

The assumption to that sort of argument is that you can only trust those who are emotionally removed and personally uninvested. To really trust someone they have to be a person who really doesn’t care about the story. I think that’s backwards.

Sure, there are situations where stories get manipulated by someone exactly because they have vested interest in the story being told. However, when it comes to the gospels (and the rest of the New Testament for that matter), what I think we find is a group of people who told these stories accurately because their whole world relied on them. These weren’t just fanciful stories about some guy. These were true stories about a person who changed everything for everyone he came into contact with. They had to get the stories right because of the magnitude of the person they were writing about.

And Luke decides to make that clear from the very beginning of his gospel story, which is why I have no problem trusting him.

Hebrew, Greek, and Luke 3:4b-6

One of the great things about giving your time to biblical studies and regular bible reading is—like with most things—you start to see things you never saw before.

I remember being blown away away when someone (a book or someone giving a lecture, I can’t remember for sure) first showed me how the New Testament writers regularly quoted the Old Testament. It was presented to me that the writers, more often than not, quote from a Greek translation instead of quoting directly from the original Hebrew (and/or Aramaic). I was blown away at first, because it seemed wrong.

Why in the world they quote from a translation when the original Hebrew was right there? Isn’t it wrong to be quoting authoritatively from a translation?

However, the more I was taught (and the more I thought about it) the more it made sense.

The writers of the New Testament were largely writing to a Greek speaking and reading world. Note: they weren’t necessarily writing to Greeks; they were writing to Greek speakers—that’s an important distinction to make. So, as you are already thinking to yourself, they wrote to those Greek speakers and readers in the language they knew—Greek. Therefore, it would make sense for the New Testament writers to quote the Old Testament from a language their readers knew as well—Greek.

Fair enough—that makes sense.

If you were writing to someone who knows German and you want to quote to them from something that was originally written in a different language, but then was translated into German, you would more than likely quote from the German translation rather than the original language.

What gets even more interesting, however, is when you begin to come across those places in the Bible where the New Testament writers quote a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, but that Greek translation of the Old Testament quotation differs from the original Hebrew Old Testament.

A great example of just this situation comes from the Isaiah 40:3-5 quotation in Luke 3:4b-6.

As you can see below, the quotation in Luke is quite similar to both the Hebrew and the Greek texts of Isaiah 40:3-5. However, there is a difference with one meaningful phrase near the end.

Isaiah 40:3-5 (Hebrew OT)
A voice is calling in the wilderness, “Clear the way of Yahweh! Make a highway smooth in the desert for our God! 4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill shall become low, And the rough ground shall be like a plain, and the rugged ground like a valley-plain. 5 And the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all humankind together shall see it, for the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.”

Isaiah 40:3-5 (Greek OT)
The voice of one calling in the desert, “Prepare the way of the Lord! Make the paths of our God straight!” 4 Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be leveled, and all the crooked ways will be made straight, and every rough spot a plain; 5 and the glory of the Lord will be seen, and all flesh will see the salvation of God, for the Lord has spoken.

Luke 3:4b-6
as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah, “The voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight! 5 Every valley will be filled, and every mountain and hill will be leveled, and the crooked will become straight, and the rough road will become smooth, 6 and all flesh will see the salvation of God.’ ”

Do you see it?

In the original Hebrew section of Isaiah, we see the words: “And the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all humankind together shall see it.” In the Greek translation of that same section we see the words: “and the glory of the Lord (Yahweh) will be seen, and all flesh will see the salvation of God.” Note, there difference there. Instead of the glory of Yahweh (the Lord) being revealed—as it says in Hebrew (…all humankind together shall see it (the glory of Yahweh)—it’s the salvation of God being revealed in Greek. And, lastly, as Luke quotes this section of Isaiah, he does so in Greek, so naturally we find the words: “and all flesh will see the salvation of God.”

Two main questions for us remain:

1. How should we deal with general situations like this?

2. How should we deal with this situation in particular?

First, I think we should admit that this sort of thing is a reality with the biblical text. Christianity and the Bible are historically verifiable things. We are not dealing with some teaching or some artifact that’s originality cannot be found. This is not some esoteric or existential belief system that we just have to take for granted or leave behind. Christianity and the Bible are firmly rooted in history. Therefore, when we look back in history and discover odd things like this that we didn’t imagined existed before, our first response should not be to run away from them. We have nothing to fear from applying the historical method of discovery to Christianity or the Bible. Christians welcome this because our faith is in a historical event—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Jesus did not physically rise from the dead, then our faith is nothing.

The fact is, this sort of thing—differences in the textual translations (from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek)—has taken place, so we must receive it. The great thing about not running from something like this is that we discover that it’s not a distraction or obstacle to our faith—it’s actually one of the wonderful features of what we believe. We can literally watch our brothers and sisters of old in action as we examine texts. We see how the texts have differed from one another and we can interact with them.

Lets then settle it once and for all—the textual change from Hebrew to Greek does not have to be a stumbling block to our faith. In fact, it can actually help us root our faith in the historical accuracy of those who’ve gone before us.

Second, our goal is not to come up with a way to smooth out this difference in the text, so it disappears, so we don’t have to deal with it. Remember, we are not afraid of the historicity of Christianity or the Bible. Our goal is to reckon with it, and see if it changes the way we should look at the text.

Quick recap: We saw in the original Hebrew of Isaiah 40 that the writer wrote about the glory of Yahweh (the Lord) being seen be all people. Then, in the Greek translation of Isaiah 40, we saw that the writer wrote that the salvation of the Lord (Yahweh) is actually the glory that will be seen by all people; but “the salvation” wasn’t in the Hebrew text. Lastly, in Luke 3, we see Luke quoting Isaiah 40 but using the Greek text, so he writes about the salvation of the Lord being seen by all people.

Are any of the texts saying something contradictory to the others? We may be tempted to say, yes, but really they aren’t. All three texts talk about the glory of Yahweh. The only difference is that Isaiah 40 (Greek) identifies the glory of Yahweh as his salvation. So, is there a difference in the texts? Yes. However, the difference is not one of contradiction, but of expansion (or explanation).

It’s not as if we’re missing something once we get to Greek from Hebrew. What we have is an expansion (or explanation) of what’s being talked about in the Hebrew. Isaiah surely spoke of the glory of Yahweh. And he said that all people will see it. However, when it came time to translate that text into Greek, the translator(s) (who most certainly knew biblical Hebrew better than anyone alive today) identified the glory of the Yahweh that everyone will see as the salvation of God.

What, then, should we do with this?

I think we should take our que from the New Testament writers, themselves. Did Luke have a problem with quoting the Greek of Isaiah 40? Absolutely not. After all, he did it. Therefore, should we have a problem with it? Absolutely not. The discomfort may come in when we recognize that Luke was authoritatively quoting from a translation that we wouldn’t know about if we didn’t consult the Greek translation of the Old Testament. If you are made uncomfortable by this, then let it be—it’s okay to be uncomfortable. That being said, don’t let the discomfort push you from the reliability of the text. Instead, allow it to draw you in. The Bible is way more interesting and exciting than we often admit or even realize.