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)

The Immanuel Prophecy and its Surprising History

Essays, The Bible, Theology

“Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.” —Isaiah ben Amoz, 734 BCE (Isa. 7:14)

For nearly twenty centuries, Christians have drawn upon Isaiah’s Immanuel oracle as a prophetic connection in support of the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. Indeed, the Gospel of Matthew references this ancient prophecy in his account of the birth of Jesus:

“All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ‘Look, the virgin shall become pregnant and give birth to a son, and they shall name him Immanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us’” Mt. 1:22-23 (NRSV).

Following this tradition, every year during Christmas season, Christian churches gather together to sing, pray, and reflect upon Jesus as Immanuel. However, in order to better engage with this ancient text and to avoid common misconceptions, it would be helpful for us to explore its original context and learn more about its interpretive history.

Historical Background of the Events of Isaiah 7

The occasion for this famous encounter between Isaiah son of Amoz with King Ahaz of Judah is at the beginning of the Syro-Ephraimite War (likely 734 BCE). The Assyrian Empire, under Tiglath-Pileser III, is expanding westward, seeming to impose a serious threat to the nations of Syria, Israel, and Judah. Therefore, Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel form a military alliance to withstand any potential Assyrian advance on the region. Seeking to bolster their strength, the joint forces of Israel and Syria plan to besiege Jerusalem and attempt to dethrone Ahaz, installing a puppet king to ensure Judah’s participation in the coalition.[1]

It is immediately before this siege that the conversation depicted in Isaiah 7 between the prophet and the king occurs. Ahaz has been exploring the possibility of reaching out to Assyria to protect Judah from its neighbors to the north in return for paying tribute. Isaiah prophetically challenges Ahaz to resist this urge and to instead put his trust in YHWH, using a small child as a prophetic oracle to communicate the Lord’s impending deliverance. However, as Hyun Chul Paul Kim states, in the end “King Ahaz could not make a leap of faith relying on the prophecy of a little child but instead resorted to submitting to the grown-up Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III.”[2]

Overview of Isaiah 7:1-9

The passage begins with a brief reference to the siege of Jerusalem and Ahaz’s fearful reaction (vv. 1-2). The Lord instructs Isaiah to take his son and meet Ahaz “at the end of the conduit of the upper pool” (v. 3), where Ahaz is likely inspecting the city’s water supply in preparation for the siege.

Isaiah’s prophetic message to Ahaz begins with the exhortation, “Do not fear” (v. 4). Ahaz is assured that the threat from Rezin and Pekah will come to nothing, because they are mere men who are no match for YHWH (vv. 4-9a). However, this promise is conditioned upon Ahaz putting his trust in YHWH rather than in an alliance with Assyria.

Unfortunately, Ahaz will eventually choose the pragmatic option of seeking Assyria’s help. This policy was problematic not simply because of its idolatrous nature, but also because of the resulting burden it would inevitably extend to the ordinary people of Judah. As a result of its alliance with Assyria, Judah would now pay tribute to the empire, which would result in a substantial increase in taxation. While this move would save his political power, it would result in economic hardship for the rest of the population.

The Immanuel Prophecy: Isaiah 7:10-17

Through Isaiah, the Lord now invites Ahaz to ask for a sign, an invitation that is unprecedented in the Bible. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, pretending to take the pious approach. In verse 13, Isaiah responds by giving voice to YHWH’s frustration (“Is it too little for you to weary mortals that you weary my God also?”). It seems as though Ahaz’s rejection of a sign betrays his predisposition for an alliance with Assyria.

In the narrative connected to this passage (2 Kings 16), Ahaz’s eventual plea to Tiglath-Pileser III begins with the statement, “I am your servant and your son” (v. 7, emphasis mine). Here, Kim sees a possible source of YHWH’s frustration: “In an intertextual reversal of Psalm 2, where YHWH declares to the Davidic king, ‘you are my son’ (Ps 2:7), Ahaz now renounces this sonship and becomes Assyria’s slave and son.”[3]

Therefore, given Ahaz’s refusal, the Lord gives him a sign: “Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel” (v. 14b). The Hebrew word for young woman, is ‘almā, which, according to John J. Collins, “can, but does not necessarily, refer to a virgin.”[4] Walter Brueggemann notes that the word simply refers to “a woman of marriageable age.”[5]

There seems to be no suggestion whatsoever that this verse is speaking of a miraculous conception. Among scholars, there are many theories floating around pertaining to the identity of this young woman. I am inclined to agree with the prevailing assumption that whoever she is, she is most likely closely associated with Ahaz, perhaps his wife or a woman in his harem.[6] Regardless, she must be an identifiable figure in order for the sign to have any meaning to Ahaz. The son shall be named Immanuel, meaning “God is with us,” which for Ahaz is meant to serve as a summons to faith, trusting that the Lord will protect and defend Judah.

In vv. 15-16, Isaiah declares, “He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.” In other words, the oracle seems to indicate that within a very short time following the child’s birth, the threat will be removed, Judah will live in peace and prosperity, and its northern neighbors will have serious problems of their own.

Finally, verse 17 declares, “The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” In its immediate context, YHWH turns His attention away from Ahaz and issues a declaration of judgment directly towards Syria and Israel (Ephraim). Indeed, the Assyrians will completely decimate these regions within a short period of time. However, it seems there also might be something else going on. Could this verse possibly be a double-edged sword, addressing multiple audiences living in different time periods?

The Immanuel Prophecy for the Exilic Community

In light of Ahaz’s ultimate refusal to trust in YHWH, verse 17 could also be seen as an intentional harbinger of what will come much later for the nation of Judah at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar in the early 6th Century when Jerusalem is destroyed and many Jews are exiled to Babylon.

The scholarly consensus is that book of Isaiah is an anthology of prophecies and narratives that originated from at least three different sources who lived over a span of at least 200 years. In the ensuing generations, scribes edited and assembled these works into what we now know as the Book of Isaiah.

For reasons I won’t enumerate here, it seems likely that the composers and redactors of this particular passage were shaping this story (set during a much earlier time) in order to speak freshly into the experience of the exilic community following the catastrophe of 587 BCE, challenging them to live in fidelity to YHWH, the true Lord of history.

Immanuel in Christian Interpretation

At some point between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7 would be translated into Greek and become part of what we now call the “Septuagint” (the Greek translation of the Hebrew canon). The Hebrew word, ‘almā, translated “young woman” in verse 14, becomes parthenos in Greek, commonly translated “virgin.” It is this Greek version of Isaiah 7:14 that will later be cited in Matthew 1:23 in connection to the virgin birth of Christ.

Interestingly, it’s been demonstrated that at the time of its translation, parthenos “did not necessarily refer exclusively to a virgin (though of course it often included that meaning when appropriate), but that it developed to have that sense in a narrower way in the immediately pre-Christian decades.”[7] Thus, linguistic development paved the way for new theological development.

It must be acknowledged that this interpretive innovation on the part of Christians was certainly not anchored to the original intent of Isaiah’s prophecy as found in the text. However, as demonstrated above, the capacity for the prophecy to morph and speak freshly and legitimately into new contexts is embedded into the history and origin of the biblical passage itself. Therefore, as Wegner asserts, Isaiah 7:14 “forms a ‘prophetic pattern’ which Matthew picks up…and fills it with more meaning by applying it to Jesus.”[8]

Concluding Reflections

For Christian interpreters of the Bible, I would like to offer a few thoughts. First, it is necessary that we adopt a humble and open posture in our task of interpreting texts like these. For many centuries, Isaiah 7 has been a battleground between Jewish and Christian interpreters. However, when one learns about the context and history of this beautiful passage, it should be apparent that there is no need to stake an exclusive claim for one interpretation over another. Indeed, the original formation of this text itself is a creative, Spirit-inspired prophetic word for a contemporary audience far removed from the events depicted (much like the musical Hamilton or the 2012 film Lincoln).

Secondly, years ago in my “Hermeneutics” class in Bible College our curriculum instructed us to always use the “historical-critical” method of bible interpretation. The historical-critical method begins with the premise that the meaning of any passage is always located within the author’s intent. Therefore, it stresses the value of using tools to uncover the historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts when engaging in Bible study.

No doubt, embracing the role of context and identifying the author’s intent is always essential in the process of interpretation. However, the assumption that the text’s meaning is always governed by the author’s intent is not only false, but problematic (as this case study hopefully demonstrates). If Christians stubbornly hold to this assumption, we are sawing off the very plank we stand on.

The original authors and redactors of the Book of Isaiah had absolutely no idea that this passage from Isaiah 7 would later spark an entirely new connection that would have nothing to do with King Ahaz or the exilic community. The early Christian community’s association of the Immanuel prophecy with the virgin birth of Christ was a theological innovation aided by new translation and linguistic development that occurred long after the events depicted in Isaiah 7 or the text’s composition.

While the historical-critical method is an invaluable approach to discerning what a passage means in its original setting, it must be recognized that elucidating “meaning” from a text is not a lab science, but an ongoing Spirit-inspired process that often leads in unanticipated directions. This isn’t to say that “meaning” is up-for-grabs for anyone to twist as one likes. Interpretation always belongs within the broader Christian community (guided by the illumination of the Spirit).

However, over and over again, the Bible itself authorizes the creative, Spirit-inspired repurposing of prophetic texts to speak freshly into new contexts. Brueggemann calls this the “generative” capacity of prophecy. Once we embrace this idea, we can not only stand firm on the historical Christian connection of Immanuel with the virgin birth of Christ, but we can also keep our eyes open, looking for new ways in which we are indeed being invited to trust in God and uniquely experience God with us in our own contexts and experiences.

[1] These events are recounted in detail in 2 Kings 16ff and 2 Chron. 28:5ff.

[2] Hyun Chul Paul Kim, Reading Isaiah: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2016), 8.

[3] Kim, Reading Isaiah, 60.

[4] John J. Collins, A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018), 218.

[5] Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 1-39 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 70.

[6] For a detailed discussion regarding the woman’s identity, see H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 6-12 (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 155-160.

[7] H. G. M. Williamson, Isaiah 6-12 (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 155-160.

[8] Paul Wegner, Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 96-97.