Bible Translation Panic and the Truth Behind It

From time to time I come across images shared on social media like the one posted below. I see posts like this one fairly often. I also regularly read and hear comments from Christians who express concerns and questions about Bible translations. Over the years, I have encountered much confusion and misinformation regarding this topic. So I thought a quick primer on Bible translations would make for an interesting article.

The implied assumption of this image seems to be that the NIV has omitted Bible verses for the sake of some sinister agenda. For the actual explanation, keep reading…

“WHY IS THIS VERSE OMITTED IN MY BIBLE?”

First, we do not have any of the original documents of any of the biblical books. But over time, people made copies of the original documents of Scripture. Many copies. And copies were made of those copies. And copies were also made of those copies (and on and on it goes). We currently possess over 5,800 ancient Greek manuscripts. If you include early translations (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, etc.), the number rises to over 20,000.

Before the invention of the printing press, all copies were handwritten. Therefore, occasionally scribes made inadvertent mistakes (spelling errors, forgotten words, missed punctuation, etc.). Sometimes scribes would intentionally adjust a certain verse or section in order to make it more intelligible. And every so often, a scribe might even change the wording to make it more theologically “correct.” Therefore, not every manuscript looks exactly the same.

However, because of the wealth of manuscripts in our possession, textual critics can often determine which readings are earlier and which are later, and in many cases can trace the development of certain textual traditions. Therefore, through the comparison of these manuscripts, these scholars have been able to gain a pretty solid consensus on the text of the original documents.

Which brings me to the image I posted above. Why does the NIV omit some of the wording of Luke 9:56 and totally exclude Matthew 18:11 (by the way, these are just two of many similar examples)? (Sidenote: The NIV is actually one of many modern translations that omit these sections).

The KJV was originally translated in 1611 from the best manuscripts that were available at the time. However, in recent decades (and centuries), many earlier and more reliable ancient manuscripts have been discovered. Through the process of textual comparison, it has been demonstrated that in cases like these, the text that the KJV includes (that the NIV omits) was almost certainly not in the original manuscripts.

There is no sinister agenda here. This especially becomes clear when we realize that there is another version of this saying of Jesus elsewhere that the NIV does include:

“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10, NIV)

Why omit this saying in one reference and not the other? Because the issue is not about censoring the Bible. It’s about being as faithful as possible to the actual, original text (something that every Christian should be interested in, right? …Right?).

“IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A WORD-FOR-WORD TRANSLATION?”

There are hundreds of English translations of the Bible. Bible translation is unavoidable. Unless every Christian wants to learn the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic), we need skilled translators. And translation is not an exact science.

Occasionally I hear people say, “I just want a word-for-word translation of the Bible.”

No, you don’t. For one thing, sentence construction in ancient Greek and Hebrew is completely different from that of modern English. For example, in Matthew 17:18 we find the story of Jesus healing a boy of demonic possession. If we were to translate it directly word-for-word, it would read something like this:

“And rebuked it the Jesus and came out from him the demon and was healed the boy from the hour that.”

This approach would obviously make the Bible unreadable.

But it gets much more complicated than just sentence structure. The ancient languages of the Bible contain tons of words that do not have exact matches in modern English. The opposite is also true. There are plenty of examples in which the English language contains words for specific concepts that do not have an ancient equivalent.

So anyone who claims to use a “literal, word-for-word” translation of the Bible is mistaken and uninformed. It doesn’t exist. Every translation involves some measure of risk, approximation, and concession.

BASIC APPROACHES TO BIBLE TRANSLATION

Translation involves “reproducing the meaning of a text that is in one language as fully as possible in another language” (from Distorting Scripture? by Mark Strauss). There are two basic approaches to accomplishing this.

The formal approach seeks to stay as close as possible to the structure and wording of the original language. As I’ve shown above, this would not be helpful (or even possible) if it were taken to the extreme. Therefore, there is some degree of compromise for the sake of readability (just like with any translation).

The upside with more formal translations is that they stay reasonably faithful to the form and wording of the original language, preserving shades of meaning that might otherwise be lost. The downside is that these translations can sometimes be difficult for the average person to understand.

Some of the best-known examples of more formal translations would be the KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, and NRSV.

The functional approach is focused more on expressing the meaning of the original text into today’s language. Some of the more contemporary translations (like the NLT and CEV) are well-known for this approach. The upside of the functional approach is that these translations are much more readable and understandable for the average person. The downside is that if it veers too far from the form of the original language, it can lose shades of meaning.

There are also other translations that try to find some measure of balance between the two approaches (the NIV, NEB, and ESV are prominent examples).

“WHAT SHOULD I LOOK FOR IN A BIBLE TRANSLATION?”

I have always enjoyed using a variety myself. When it comes to praying through the Psalms, I love the poetic, Shakespearean English of the KJV/NKJV. When it comes to study and preaching, I mostly lean on the NRSV.

But when it comes to daily reading, I bounce around a bit. I’ve learned that every translation has its strengths and weaknesses.

But here would be my general advice to the average churchgoer.

First, find a translation you can understand. If you can’t understand anything, what’s the point? For people who are somewhat new to Christianity, I tend to recommend the New Living Translation (NLT) as a great starting point.

I used to advise people to rely more on translations that were formulated by a committee rather than by just one person. There is a common assumption that there is an inherent weakness when the translation work is being done by one person. As the argument goes, when the work of translation is undertaken by a committee of respected scholars, there is a natural system of checks and balances that helps prevent one’s own bias or personal convictions from being sneaked into the text. On the other hand, when one is doing the work alone, the text is much more vulnerable to distortion.

However, I have since come to understand that committees can also be biased and slow to adopt fresh thinking. While a committee structure does create internal accountability, it does not eliminate bias; it simply redistributes it. Committees are composed of individuals who often share similar academic training, theological commitments, and institutional affiliations. In some cases, the very process that guards against eccentric interpretation can also produce a kind of intellectual inertia. When consensus is required for progress, the safest or most traditional rendering may be favored over a potentially more accurate but less familiar one.

In the end, every translation reflects careful scholarship, difficult decisions, and a sincere effort to bridge ancient words and modern ears. That reality shouldn’t scare us—it should humble us and make us grateful. Instead of fueling suspicion, let it fuel confidence: we have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to manuscripts, scholarship, and faithful translations. So pick up a Bible you can understand, read it deeply, compare it thoughtfully, and let it shape you. The goal is to know Christ, and the Bible’s task it to reveal him to you.

(Note: I posted a version of this article on my website several years ago. I’ve revised and adapted it to include updated data and to better reflect my current perspective.)

“Hosanna!” and “Crucify Him!” From the Same Crowd?

Cross, Jesus, The Bible

A bit earlier today on Threads, someone posed the following question:

The text doesn’t really give us much reason to think the “Hosanna!” crowd and the “Crucify him!” crowd were the same people, right?

It’s an interesting question. I’m not sure how much, if anything, is at stake here. But I’ve often heard the statement, “The same crowd that chanted ‘Hosanna!’ on Palm Sunday was chanting ‘Crucify him!’ on Good Friday.” It preaches well.

But is it true? To be honest, I can’t say for sure. But I seriously doubt it.

First, the Palm Sunday crowd seemed to be made up mostly of Passover pilgrims who had been traveling with Jesus from Galilee and from other places who joined along the way. Note the example of Bartimaeus, who after being healed, “followed him on the way” (Mk. 10:52). Also, notice how Matthew contrasts the Palm Sunday crowd with the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, “Who is this?” (Mt. 21:10).

The city of Jerusalem, which normally maintained a population of around 20,000-30,000 people, during Passover season would swell up to about 2 million pilgrims from around the world. That’s a whole lot of people. So the multitudes who gathered in Jerusalem that week were not a monolith. And on that basis alone, it’s a significant leap to conflate the Palm Sunday crowd with the Good Friday crowd. It would be like me shopping at Target one afternoon, then returning a few days later, and assuming that the crowd of shoppers on both days was identical.

Secondly, all throughout the week, the Temple establishment had been plotting to arrest Jesus and kill him. But they realized that they had to do so by stealth. They were concerned a public arrest would cause a riot (Mt. 26:3-5). All the way up to Good Friday, Jesus remained a hugely popular figure with his followers.

This is the whole reason why the Temple hierarchy was willing to pay Judas. The arrest needed to take place in secret, under cover of darkness, away from the public eye. Judas knew Jesus’ movements. He knew he could find Jesus in the privacy of Gethsemane in the evening. From there, Jesus would be led straight across the Kidron Valley to the home of Caiaphas where he would undergo a sham, overnight trial.

Then very early in the morning, Jesus is handed over to Pilate, who at some point presents a gathered crowd with the choice of releasing either Jesus, or a violent revolutionary named Barabbas. Here’s how John describes it:

After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him. ³⁹But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover. Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” ⁴⁰They shouted in reply, “Not this man but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a rebel. (Jn 18:38-40)

Numerous times throughout John’s account of Passion Week, he uses the phrase “the Jews.” This is a quite unfortunate reality that has been used to promote and support abhorrent antisemitism throughout history. Nevertheless, whenever we see this phrase in the Gospel of John, he’s using this phrase as shorthand to refer to the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem who stood in opposition to Jesus. Not to Jews in general. Again, John’s use of this phrase has had terrible ramifications throughout history. And I think translators need to come up with other options.

Regardless, it tells us something about the composition of this crowd. Keep in mind that the whole point of staging a secret arrest followed by an overnight “trial,” along with handing Jesus over to Pilate in the wee hours in the morning was to get him convicted and sentenced before the public could assemble and influence anything.

If everyone in Jerusalem (all 2+ million!) had turned on him by that point, then there would be no need for any of that nonsense. But that’s not the case.

So, I don’t think there’s any reason to think they were the same crowd, and plenty of reason to assume they weren’t. It doesn’t preach as well, but I think it’s probably the truth.

Nevertheless. Have a meaningful Holy Week. Don’t rush to Easter. Embrace the story.

(The painting is “Ecce Homo” by Antonio Ciseri)

Severance and the Gospel

Christian history, Culture, Kingdom of God

Without a doubt, the hottest streaming series this Spring is Apple TV’s psychological thriller Severance, created by Dan Erickson and directed by Ben Stiller. Severance currently boasts a 96% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and since its premiere on January 17, Season 2 alone has garnered a viewership of over 3 billion streaming minutes. In other words, Severance is a bonafide, all-time hit.

Hamony Cobel (Patricia Arquette) is the bizarre Supervisor of the severed floor in Season 1.

The story revolves around protagonist Mark Scout (played by Adam Scott) who is employed by a local branch of a mysterious global corporation, Lumon Industries. One particular floor of Lumon’s massive office complex is devoted to work so secretive that incoming employees are required to undergo a controversial surgical procedure. The surgery implants a chip into the brain that separates employees’ “work memories” from the rest of their memories.

The effect is that each severed employee (or “innie”) has a life that is carefully curated and dominated by Lumon, with no cognitive connection to one’s life in the outside world. Likewise, the same person outside of the office (or the “outie”) has no recollection of anything that happens at work.

For its severed workers, Lumon has created an entire world of peculiar nomenclature, imagery, customs, routines, and company history to tame its employees’ curiosity and satisfy their longing for meaning. By doing so, Lumon is able to manipulate and control their entire lives.

But as the story progresses, Mark and some of his co-workers intuitively suspect that something is amiss with Lumon and the existence that has been crafted for them. They become increasingly disenchanted with their experience and begin to imagine what life is like beyond their home on the windowless severed floor.

Creepy statue of Lumon CEO, Jame Eagan (Michael Siberry)

Something similar is happening right now inside the world of American Christianity. Many of us have been handed a severed gospel, largely stripped of what makes the Jesus story so rich, beautiful, and intoxicating.

The gospel is the story of God setting right a world gone wrong. It’s a story that begins with God choosing Abraham and forming his descendants into a great nation through whom God will bless the entire earth. The story continues with the promise that God will establish as king one of David’s descendants who will reign eternally and whose kingdom will encompass the entire earth.

Finally, the story culminates with Jesus of Nazareth, Israel’s messiah, winning an atoning victory on the cross, and being raised and ascended to the Father’s right hand, where he is now enthroned as king of the nations.

Therefore, in response to this good news, the invitation of the gospel is to come under the reign of King Jesus and join the community of believers who (by God’s grace) are together learning to embrace and embody his vision for life as God intends it to be lived. A life that continues on in the age to come.

It is the life Jesus taught and modeled for us. A life characterized by the Sermon on the Mount. A life marked by peace-making, enemy love, patience, and self-denial. And it is through these kinds of cross-shaped communities that God is mending, healing, and saving a lost and broken world.

Yet for many of us, the gospel we’ve inherited sounds quite different. Rather than a story that includes what God is up to in the world right now through the reign of King Jesus, the gospel has been presented to us as a formula for individual salvation regarding how to get to heaven when we die. It’s mechanical. Formulaic. Transactional.

It’s not that this gospel is wrong, per se. It’s just incomplete. It’s a severed gospel. This severance didn’t happen overnight but gradually morphed over several centuries.

It is difficult to locate a definitive starting point, but certainly the Protestant Reformers were instrumental in its development and circulation. John Calvin, in particular, was a trained lawyer who later became a prominent theologian. Calvin’s theological work on soteriology was significantly shaped by his legal background and would become hugely influential in affecting how future generations in the West would understand the gospel.

Consequently, people began to view salvation primarily through a legal framework—that guilty sinners can be “acquitted” because of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross and thereby receive forgiveness and salvation.

Indeed, this is true so far as it goes. And certainly the apostle Paul, in his writings, frequently employs legal metaphors. But it isn’t nearly enough to delineate the full scope and nature of salvation and the gospel as described in the story the Bible tells.

The severance process continued throughout the era of colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. As Western empires sought to conquer and control foreign lands and peoples, the Christian enterprise was often a complicit partner.

As territories were being occupied and exploited, many Christian missionaries and pastors focused their work exclusively on “saving souls.” Colonizers and slaveowners sought to depict conquered and enslaved peoples as something less than human in order to excuse themselves from the ethical demands of Christ’s teaching, allowing them to perpetuate their oppression and exploitation.

Eventually, the American Protestant world would rupture with the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A whole host of complicated issues was involved, but at the center of it was a fierce debate over the nature of the gospel.

During the Jim Crow era, many pastors and churches of all kinds were calling attention to the issues of poverty, inequality, and exploitation of workers. Drawing from the Bible, and in particular the teachings of Christ, they contended for a more just and equitable society.

However, some of these Christian leaders and institutions were also departing from orthodox Christian doctrines (such as the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Christ). It is also true that in some cases, the emphasis on Christ and the role of Christian worship were becoming deemphasized and displaced altogether.

This movement ignited a strong response from what would become the Fundamentalist movement, which aimed to counteract what was identified as a wholesale departure from normative, orthodox Christianity.

Along with reasserting the creedal foundational doctrines that some Modernists were rejecting, the Fundamentalists sought to declare once and for all a clear exposition of the gospel, centered upon a sin-forgiveness transaction based on Christ’s atoning death that results in the free gift of salvation. This is the gospel, the Fundamentalists would declare.

And thus, the fault lines were created. And they continue to rumble up to the present day.

This is the severed gospel we have inherited. And like Mark Scout and his co-workers on the severed floor, many Christians in America are longing for something more compelling. Dissatisfied with the simplistic script we’ve been handed, we crave to be part of a more beautiful story. A richer, grander metanarrative.

We yearn for a reintegration. Christ’s atoning death, his bodily resurrection, the experience of forgiveness for sin, and the promise of life in the age to come are indispensable components to this story. However, this is also a story that includes God’s longing for the world as it exists right now.

If we truly believe that Jesus is the reigning king of the nations today, then this gospel is not just something to be believed, but as the New Testament states repeatedly, it is to be obeyed.

Thus, the invitation of this good news is not simply to engage in a transaction to secure afterlife salvation, but to enter into and participate in Jesus’ saving, healing work in the world right now.