Hi Learned ones…

Luke 9: 62 was part of the bible focus at church last week, and I have a translation question…

NIV says this:

Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

ESV says this:

Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Now I’m not intending this as an NIV/ESV stand off - I use both as this often highlights a range of word meanings without constantly looking up a dictionary.

Anyway, the NIV includes the term “service” in the context of what Jesus says people are not fit for. ESV omits the word.

My commentary (Expositors, which is NIV based) says that the word service is not actually in the greek but is included in the NIV as the context implies it.

Is this a reaonsable translation assumption to make? It seems the ESV version implies a much broader “unfitness” being the Kingdom of God in totality.

Hi Jeff,

I’ll reply while the learned ones are having morning tea....

From a linguistic and translation perspective it is a nonsense to think that there is always a one-to-one equivalence between words in different languages.

This means it does not specifically matter whether an English translation uses one word or two or three for a particular Greek word (or vice versa).

I suspect the NIV translators were concerned that the English word “fit” has a very broad semantic range for many English speakers and that range was too broad by itself for the Greek word ευθετος (euthetos).

For example, they may have been concerned about a possible cult-like, hyper-holiness reading of “fit”, which implied that almost none of us
can ever enter in the kingdom of God.

Most other English translations have not felt the need to follow the NIV family’s approach here, although the Good News translation has:
“Anyone who starts to plow and then keeps looking back is of no use for the Kingdom of God.”

I think most commentators, such as the one you quoted, would say the NIV is pointing readers to the relevant sense of the English word fit.

This is not something that the NIV feels the need to do all the time, but, FWIW, in this case I am not convinced the NIV really needed to do it,
so on balance I would prefer the ESV/NASB/NET Bible wording here.

Undeserved generosity and peace,
Terry

Whether the assumption is reasonable or not, I would much rather see the translation (any translation) omit the word if it is not there in the Greek. That’s basic, and annoys me whether it’s done by the ESV or NIV.

However in this case, adding the word ‘service’ to Luke 9:62 seems to narrow the meaning of Jesus’ words in a way that the immediate context doesn’t. So I would say this is not just an example of bad translation but wrong translation. Jesus’ demands here are far more sweeping than just service, which (to me anyway) implies a focus on activity.

It seems to me that this story has to be read in the context of the bigger section, and in particular the demands that Jesus has made once Peter has publicly acknowledged that Jesus is “the Christ of God” (9:20). Immediately after this Jesus begins to make plain the consequences of this truth, including:

Luke 9:23 And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

So the demands he makes on us are comprehensive in their scope, relating to our ‘service’ and to a lot more besides.

Jeff Atack - 06 February 2008 10:44 AM

Is this a reaonsable translation assumption to make? It seems the ESV version implies a much broader “unfitness” being the Kingdom of God in totality.

Hi again Jeff,

To make sure I give an attempted answer to your actual question....
yes I think it is a reasonable translation assumption to make in this case
but I don’t think it was necessary or preferred.

On the other hand, your final comment about the ESV seeming to imply something “much broader”, is probably the concern the NIV translators had with fit by itself.

Terry

Deleted duplicate post

Gordon said:
Whether the assumption is reasonably or not, I would much rather see the translation (any translation) omit the word if it is not there in the Greek.

Hi Gordon,
Your statement here begs the question of the topic, which is whether fit by itself is the most appropriate way to translate euthetos.

It is interesting that in two other verses where forms of euthetos are used in the NT the translations have:

Luke 14:35 :
ESV: of no use (in a negative context);
NASB: useless;
NET has: of no value and in a footnote not useful;
NIV has: It is fit neither for the soil…

Heb 6:7:
ESV: useful;
NASB/NET/NIV also have useful in this context;

(There may be other verses where euthetos is used
but I don’t have a full Greek NT concordance with me here.)

So I can see where the NIV translators are coming from in Luke 9:62
and I don’t think your comment that it is a “wrong translation” is sustainable.

Your exegesis of Luke 9 is useful for the study of Luke 9,
but it is just that - exegesis not translation.

P.S. I read the word service in the Luke 9:62 NIV more broadly than you do.

P.P.S. Just to clarify, I prefer the ESV etc in Luke 9:62
but I don’t think the NIV is “wrong” either.

Grace & peace,
Terry

Thanks for the contributions so far Terry and Gordo…

Enkidu...anything from you, oh learned one??

p.s. I just noticed I’ve cracked my fist posting tonne…

Jeff Atack - 06 February 2008 03:50 PM

Thanks for the contributions so far Terry and Gordo…

Enkidu...anything from you, oh learned one??

p.s. I just noticed I’ve cracked my fist posting tonne…

[My bold]

So Jeff,
That’s who you were grovelling to in the original post....8-)
Grace & peace,
Terry

Jeff Atack - 06 February 2008 03:50 PM

Thanks for the contributions so far Terry and Gordo…

Enkidu...anything from you, oh learned one??

p.s. I just noticed I’ve cracked my fist posting tonne…

[My bold]
Hi Jeff,
I hope it hasn’t been too painful....
Terry

Terry Gallagher - 06 February 2008 03:48 PM

Gordon said:
Whether the assumption is reasonably or not, I would much rather see the translation (any translation) omit the word if it is not there in the Greek.

Hi Gordon,
Your statement here begs the question of the topic, which is whether fit by itself is the most appropriate way to translate euthetos.

It is interesting that in two other verses where forms of euthetos are used in the NT the translations have:

Luke 14:35 :
ESV: of no use (in a negative context);
NASB: useless;
NET has: of no value and in a footnote not useful;
NIV has: It is fit neither for the soil…

Heb 6:7:
ESV: useful;
NASB/NET/NIV also have useful in this context;

(There may be other verses where euthetos is used
but I don’t have a full Greek NT concordance with me here.)

No, there are no other verses.

Here’s 2 entries from Louw and Nida on ‘euthetos’:

‘euthetos, on’: pertaining to being capable of being put to a useful purpose — ‘useful, of value.’ ‘it is of no use to the soil, not even to the dung heap’ Lk 14:35.

‘euthetos, on’: pertaining to being fitting or appropriate, with the probable implication of usable — ‘fit, suitable, usable.’ ‘no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God’ Lk 9:62.

And Thayer offers ‘well-placed’, or even ‘seasonable’ (though not in the Luke context).

P.S. I read the word service in the Luke 9:62 NIV more broadly than you do.

Perhaps this is an issue, then. But if you do read it more broadly, doesn’t that render the word ‘service’ redundant?

Oh, and does anyone know what a ‘plow’ is? ;-)

Oh, and Enkers is a Hebraist, so may not be as euthetos as he appears. On the other hand, he is almost certainly more euthetos than me. In fact, without a lexicon to hand I am nearly euthless.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Whether the assumption is reasonable or not, I would much rather see the translation (any translation) omit the word if it is not there in the Greek. That’s basic, and annoys me whether it’s done by the ESV or NIV.

I think Gordon’s wrong at this point (as Terry has already indicated): not one of the words in the ESV (or NIV) appears in the Greek. The question is whether εὔθετος means ‘fit’ or ‘fit for service’. If it means the latter then it is entirely appropriate for the NIV to use more than one English word to correctly convey the idea.

Having said that, I think Gordon’s conclusion is probably right:

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]However in this case, adding the word ‘service’ to Luke 9:62 seems to narrow the meaning of Jesus’ words in a way that the immediate context doesn’t. So I would say this is not just an example of bad translation but wrong translation. Jesus’ demands here are far more sweeping than just service, which (to me anyway) implies a focus on activity.

The NIV reading sounds to me as though Jesus is saying that the person who puts their hand to the plough and looks back is fit to slouch around in the kingdom of God. So I prefer the ESV here, because I don’t think Jesus has slouching in mind!

Thank you Oh learned ones (including you Terry!).

I appreciate having you guys around to pick your brains!

Its surprising that the NIV has been getting a bit of rough rap lately in terms of Bibilical context.  I was recently in Melbourne, where I was stopped by a Christian urging me to turn away from NIV and go to King James Version as it is true scripture.  He further mentioned that KJV is much more accurate by which NIV omits important text, example in Colossians 1:14 - KJV mentions “In whom we have redemption through his blood”.  NIV misses out the wording “through his blood”.

Greg Voukoufian - 07 February 2008 11:04 PM

Its surprising that the NIV has been getting a bit of rough rap lately in terms of Bibilical context.  I was recently in Melbourne, where I was stopped by a Christian urging me to turn away from NIV and go to King James Version as it is true scripture.  He further mentioned that KJV is much more accurate by which NIV omits important text, example in Colossians 1:14 - KJV mentions “In whom we have redemption through his blood”.  NIV misses out the wording “through his blood”.

Hi Greg,

This has nothing to do with the NIV translation as such.

Your Melbourne “friend” was talking nonsense....roughly equivalent to being a fully-paid up member of the Society for all Church Music Being 16th Century Psalm Arrangements.

Part 1:
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek.
Everything else is a translation,
and every translation has to be done into the target language of a particular time and place.

William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament from Greek into the English of his day in 1525 was an excellent translation -
if you were a 16th century English person.

Tyndale’s work was the basis for the KJV of 1611.

William Tyndale gave his life (literally) to provide the Scriptures
to ordinary people in their own language so that they could understand it clearly.

Bible translators today sometimes refer to this as providing a translation in a person’s heart language

If Tyndale were here today, he would be horrified that someone was telling people today to read his work of nearly 500 years ago as their main Bible translation.....the English language has simply changed too much!

Part 2:
When Tyndale did his translation he used at least one of the editions of the Greek New Testament that Erasmus had compiled several years earlier.

For complicated historical reasons, Erasmus only had access to a relatively small number of Greek manuscripts of the NT to compile his editions of the Greek NT.

Based on those manuscripts, Erasmus’ Greek NT included in Col 1:14 the phrase dia tou haimato autou which Tyndale/KJV translated as
“through his blood”. 

Many more Greek NT manuscripts have been found since the time of Erasmus and Tyndale and the vast majority of them do not have the phrase dia tou haimato autou in Col 1:14.

So all the 20th and 21st century translations that you might normally use such as NIV/ESV/NASB/RSV/NET omit that phrase in Col 1:14.

However, they all include a translation of the phrase dia tou haimato autou = “ through his blood” in Ephesians 1:7.

The Net Bible has extensive translation notes and their translation note on Col 1:14 concludes with this statement:

NET Bible translation note:
The conviction that “through his blood” is not authentic in Col 1:14 is as strong as the conviction that these words are authentic in Eph 1:7.

Your Melbourne “friend” on the other hand thinks that one of Erasmus’ Greek NT editions is the only thing to use as a base for translation.

I have included this Part 2 , by way of explanation on the “through his blood” example.

The relative merits of the 16th century editions of the Greek NT text versus the 20th century editions has been done to death in other threads on these forums, so I, for one, do not intend to make any further comment on that particular topic.

Grace & peace,
Terry

Greg Voukoufian - 07 February 2008 11:04 PM

Its surprising that the NIV has been getting a bit of rough rap lately in terms of Bibilical context. 

Generally speaking it’s an excellent translation.

This really was only a discussion of one verse, and within that, one word ‘euthetos’.

I accept Terry’s and Enkers’ point that the question is whether this is best translated as ‘fit’ or ‘fit for service’. However the lexicons and the context both point to the former as the better translation. ‘Wrong’ is an overstatement on my part, so I’ll just stay with ‘bad’, as far as this verse goes.

From http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/17157.htm (to be sung to the tune of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General”)

I am the very model of a modern Evangelical,
I’ve information biblical, liturgical and clerical.
I know the minor prophets and the progeny of Ishmael,
The sins of Magor-missabab, and all the kings of Israel.

I’m well acquainted too with matters exegetical,
And stamp out modern doctrines that are novel or heretical.
I quote the scriptures to my aunts in versions that bamboozle ‘em,
The R.S.V. and N.E.B., the Plain Jane and Jerusalem.
Chorus:
The R.S.V. and N.E.B., the Plain Jane and Jerusalem.
The R.S.V. and N.E.B., the Plain Jane and Jerusalem.
The R.S.V. and N.E.B., the Plain Jane and Jerusalem.

I’m very good at apostolic and reformed theology,
I’ve always had an a-millennial view of eschatology.
In short in matters biblical, liturgical and clerical
I am the very pattern of a modern Evangelical.

Between the prayer-book versions I am quick to differentiate,
Supporting sixteen sixty-two but not the nineteen twenty-eight.
I like the clergy dressed in black, and not in bright regalia,
I’ll join in prayers extempore, but never glossolalia.

I don’t mind modern liturgies involving all the laity,
But won’t sing chants Gregorian, not tolerate much gaiety.
I’m very quick to spot a word whose overtones are sinister,
I never call a priest a priest, but always just a minister.

Chorus:
He never calls a priest a priest, but always just a minister.
He never calls a priest a priest, but always just a minister.
He never calls a priest a priest, but always just a mini-minister.

I like the gospel to be preached in phrases all traditional,
With sermons twenty minutes long and three points expositional.
In short in matters biblical, liturgical and clerical
I am the very model of a modern Evangelical.

(SLOWER)
In fact when I know what is meant by science and sociology,
When I can talk impromptu on the ethics of ecology,
When I’ve encountered Women’s Lib, or lobbied local aldermen,
And when I’ve mixed with long-haired “hips”, or marched to back the balder men.

When I have let my own hair down, despite my high gentility,
And learnt to live with just a little less respectability.
In short, when I’m more “with-it” than a nomad in the Nullarbor,
(VIVACE)
You’ll find your modern Evangelical is not so dull a bore.

Chorus:
You’ll find your modern Evangelical is not so dull a bore.
You’ll find your modern Evangelical is not so dull a bore.
You’ll find your modern Evangelical is not so dull a bore.

For my orthodox upbringing, though I’ve penitence and piety,
Has never brought me face to face with much of our society.
But still in matters biblical, liturgical and clerical,
I am the very model of a modern Evangelical.

By Dr Jan Hext