The words of a Bible text are vitally important, but there are other elements that play a role in how we understand the meaning of any text. Think, for instance, of punctuation.

The original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible did not use punctuation. As a result, readers had to make their own interpretation regarding sentence structure. Of course, the syntax of the strings of words gave clues as to sentence structure and who was speaking.

The King James Version added periods, commas, question marks, semicolons, and colons to the English translation, which were all very helpful. But it did not use quotation marks, as they weren’t in common use in the 1600s. The New King James Version (NKJV) used all those same elements of punctuation but also added quotation marks, which made the flow of the text easier for contemporary readers to understand.

For the most part, the placement of quotation marks is very intuitive. But sometimes the translators have to decide where a quotation ends. Look, for example, at John 3:10-21. In Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus, we see that one of Jesus’ speeches begins at verse 10. But is Jesus still talking in verses 16-21?

The translators of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) used a closing quotation mark at the end of verse 15, though they added a footnote that said, “Some interpreters hold that the quotation continues through verse 21.” But the translators of the New Revised Standard Version did not use an ending quotation mark after verse 15. As a result, they indicate that Jesus was still speaking in verses 16-21. Similarly, the English Standard Version (which is a revision of the RSV) includes verses 16-21 as words of Jesus.

The 1984 edition of the New International Version (NIV) included verses 16-21 as words of Jesus. But the 2011 edition of the NIV stops Jesus’ speech at the end of verse 15. The NIV translators concluded that verses 16-21 were part of the apostle John’s narrative, but not part of Jesus’ speech.

The translation team for the New Living Translation wrestled with this same issue. Should verses 16-21 be included as part of Jesus’ speech? Our conclusion was these verses should be treated as words of Jesus. This all becomes very obvious in a red-letter Bible. The text of verses 16-21 is presented either in black type or red type depending on the translators’ decision as to whether Jesus is still speaking in these verses.

In the final analysis, the meaning of verses 16-21 does not change. Whether these are the words of Jesus or of the apostle John, the message is very clear. The NLT renders verses 16 and 17 in this way:

¹⁶ “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁷ God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.”

These familiar verses provide a wonderful promise of redemption for all who believe in Jesus as the Son of God.

We all know that the King James Version (KJV) uses “thee and thou” language, and we intuitively know that the words thee and thou both mean “you.” But it might surprise you to realize that the KJV also uses the word you in many passages. Why is this?

Terms like thee and thou and thy sound very old-fashioned to us today, and they are. But there is a simple linguistic explanation for them. And to understand that, we need to brush up on our pronouns and how they are used.

We use first-person pronouns when we are speaking about ourselves: “Before I went to the store, my wife told me to get milk. She said that we needed milk for our breakfast.”

We use second-person pronouns when we are speaking to another person: “My wife said, ‘When you go to the store, remember to take your phone.’”

We use third-person pronouns when we are speaking about another person: “She went to the store to get new shirts for herself and her kids. They all needed new clothes.”

In English, we use the pronoun you to refer to a single person or a group of people. We also use you as both the subject of a sentence and the object of a sentence. But both Hebrew and Greek differentiate between singular and plural and between subject and object.

In the Elizabethan period and earlier, English used those same distinctions. So when the King James Version was translated during the first decade of the 1600s, it was natural to use a number of different second-person pronouns. Here’s a table that shows the pronouns used in the English of the Elizabethan period (when the KJV was being translated):

Here’s an example of how the various second-person pronouns are used in the KJV translation of Matthew 5:27-29:

 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.  And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

But modern translations use you and your in each of these instances. Here is the same passage as found in the New Living Translation (NLT):

“You have heard the commandment that says, ‘You must not commit adultery.’ But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible is in some sense a successor to the King James Version. It was published in 1952, which was within the lifetime of some of us, and of course we didn’t use “thee and thou” language except when we were reading the KJV. So the RSV translators broke with the KJV tradition, and they used the familiar you for both singular and plural, both as subject and object.

So the RSV translates Matthew 5:27-29 this way:

 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”

But look at what the RSV does in Psalm 5, where the psalmist is speaking to God the Father:

¹ Give ear to my words, O Lord;
give heed to my groaning.
² Hearken to the sound of my cry,
my King and my God,
for to thee do I pray.
³ O Lord, in the morning thou dost hear my voice;
in the morning I prepare a sacrifice for thee, and watch.

Since the church had been accustomed to using “thee and thou” language for centuries, and it had come to be considered a kind of holy language, the RSV translators felt that they needed to retain “thee and thou” in certain passages where people are speaking directly to God.

Some people suggest that the KJV’s use of “thee and thou” language reflects a higher view of God and his Word—as though it sounds more holy—but the use of such language is simply the product of the time period in which the translation was produced. As always, translation work is most effective when it communicates in language that readers can readily understand—which changes over time.

Even though the KJV can be challenging to read and understand, pastors in thousands of churches still use it as their standard translation for preaching, and many people have memorized passages from the KJV. It is filled with beautiful language and has been tremendously influential and important in the history of English Bible translation.

Most important of all is that, regardless of translation, people are indeed reading the Bible, God’s message to all of us. Our prayer is that readers of the NLT, like the seventeenth-century readers of the KJV, will encounter God’s Word afresh, in language they can understand.

by Jonathan W. Bryant, PhD, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

In late September or early October, the Jewish people celebrate Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. This holiest day of the Jewish calendar, in which the Jewish people abstain from various practices, including eating, drinking, and sexual relations, stems from the instructions given in Leviticus 16 (see also Leviticus 23:26-32; Numbers 29:7-11). On that day, the high priest was to enter the Most Holy Place in the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple), and offer purification for the sanctuary, the priests, and the entire community. In this way, the people, marred by sin, would be atoned (or made right) before God.

Leviticus 23:26-32 outlines what the observance of this day was to look like for the people of Israel. The description of some of these practices can sound confusing to our modern ears, so translators take various approaches to help readers understand the meaning of the Hebrew wording in this description.

For example, in Leviticus 23:27, in the instructions given to the people, the KJV reads, “Ye shall afflict your souls.” The ESV picks up this language: “You shall afflict yourselves” (see also NKJV). Are readers to understand that these ancient Israelites were doing physical harm to themselves (the most natural understanding of “afflict” today)? The Hebrew verb used here is ‘anah (ah-NAH), which appears more than eighty times in the Old Testament. This term can have numerous connotations but generally refers to being in a bent down or low position. It can be used to speak of a physical, crouched-down or bowed-down position. In a non-physical sense, it can refer to being humble, subjected, or oppressed. So if the action is done to oneself, as here, it essentially means to make oneself humble or weak. But many people today are likely to get the wrong impression with the term “afflict.” Some translations have rendered the term “humble yourselves” (for example, NASB, NRSV). The NLT translators opted to go with “deny yourselves,” which gets at the general sense of humble submission but also conveys the idea that there is an active rejection of desire (mainly for food), which is behind the meaning of “affliction” as used in the KJV. Most modern translations also include a footnote to suggest that this “denial” or “affliction” is practiced chiefly in abstaining from food (i.e., fasting).

Another English term often used in this passage that may not be readily understood by modern readers (particularly those without a church background) is the word “atonement” itself. In Leviticus 23:28, the Hebrew verb kaphar (kah-FAR) is used to describe what happens before the Lord on the Day of Atonement as the high priest performs his duties. This Hebrew term, which means “to cover” (see Genesis 6:14, where Noah’s ark was “covered” [i.e., waterproofed] with tar or pitch), is taken up in a metaphorical sense throughout the Old Testament to refer to the “covering” or appeasement of sin. God provided the people with a way (through sacrifices and the Day of Atonement) for their sin to be forgiven and their relationship with him to be restored. This is what our English term “atonement” means. But in the interest of making this concept more understandable for modern readers, the NLT translators rendered the wording in Leviticus 23:28 as “making you right with the lord your God.”

These are two examples in which the NLT renders the contextual meaning of Hebrew terms but does so in language that is readily understood by modern readers. As we reflect on the Day of Atonement as described in Scripture, let us pause to let the reality sink in that Jesus, our great High Priest, has provided atonement, making us right with God, through his once-for-all sacrifice on the cross (see Hebrews 10:1-18).

If you compare two or more Bible translations, you will occasionally find differences in the breakup of paragraphs or major sections of the text. What’s going on?

For starters, we need to recognize that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts upon which our translations are based did not have chapter breaks, verse numbers, paragraph breaks, or punctuation. In fact, the earliest Greek manuscripts didn’t even have spaces between the words. All those features have been added by Bible copyists and scholars through the centuries.

The standard Greek text used by most students today, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), includes chapter and verse numbers and a minimal level of punctuation. The scholars who compiled that Greek text have also inserted section headings in the text, but translators have to make their own judgment as to the placement of paragraph breaks and section headings.

An example where translations differ comes in the section break at Ephesians 5:20-21. The syntax of the Greek text suggests that verses 18-24 comprise one long sentence, yet the UBS text introduces a paragraph break and a new section header beginning at verse 21. Some translations (e.g., RSV, NIV²⁰¹¹, NLT) follow the UBS text and introduce a section header prior to verse 21. Other translations (e.g., NASB, NIV¹⁹⁸⁴, NKJV, NRSV, ESV) introduce a section header prior to verse 22. We can see the difference when we compare this passage in the NLT and the ESV:

Why the difference? It relates to the translators’ understanding of what Paul is saying in verse 21. Is the concept of “submitting to one another” the end of a thought and therefore the end of a major section, as in the ESV? Or is verse 21 the beginning of a new thought that is continued in verses 22-33? If the section break comes before verse 22 rather than before verse 21, it implies that submitting to one another (v. 21) is somehow unrelated to the instruction for wives to submit to their husbands (v. 22).

The NLT translators see verse 21 as an introduction to the relationships within a marriage. Believers are to submit to one another (v. 21). This thought is then fleshed out in terms of the relationship between wives and husbands. Wives are to submit to their husbands as to the Lord (v. 22), and husbands are to love their wives, just as Christ loved the church (v. 25).

We must remember, though, that the section headings in any translation have been created by the translators as a tool to help readers understand the flow of the text. Those headings were not in the original Hebrew or Greek texts.

This is just one small glimpse into the kinds of decisions that Bible translators make as they prepare the text for print. Translators take their work very seriously since they are dealing with God’s message for all people in all cultures and languages. May we as readers also take the text seriously as we read it and apply it to our own lives.

by Jonathan W. Bryant, PhD, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

Sometimes when a word is being translated from one language to another, it can be difficult to find a direct correspondence in a single word. In such cases, the word in the source language (e.g., ancient Greek) carries a meaning known to that audience but for which the target language (e.g., English) doesn’t have an equivalent word. The concept may be present in the target language, but to adequately put the ancient concept into words requires more explanation than a single word can give.

The Greek word paraklētos (pronounced pah-RAH-klay-tahs) provides one such example. This noun (which appears in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1) is related to the frequently used verb parakaleō, which at its core means “to call to one’s side.” This “calling” can be for various purposes (e.g., encouragement, an appeal or entreaty, exhortation, or comfort), so the verb can be rendered in various ways in the New Testament, depending on the context. The noun paraklētos similarly means something to the effect of “one who is called to the side of another to provide aid.” To translate this meaning into a single English word proves difficult.

A further complication that emerges in translating paraklētos is that, as a reference to the Holy Spirit, it has been treated as a title (some simply prefer to use the transliterated term Paraclete). Modern English translations have thus generally attempted to render paraklētos with a singular, titular term in English. But note the variation of terms used among popular English translations in, for example, John 14:26:

• NIV: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
• NLT: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, who will never leave you.
• ESV: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
• KJV: And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
• NKJV: And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—
• CSB: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever.
• NRSV: And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever.
• NASB: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, so that He may be with you forever;

The NLT translators opted for the English term advocate, as a general way of referring to someone who is “called to come alongside.” While advocate may sound like an attorney for some readers, other terms like comforter or helper can narrow the sense to coming alongside simply for encouragement or material aid. Similarly, counselor carries for many the sense of either verbal advice or a therapeutic connotation. The overarching notion of “coming alongside another to provide aid” can involve numerous purposes, so any singular-word rendering is likely to leave readers with an understanding of the Holy Spirit that is at least somewhat incomplete. As a way of accounting for this, the NLT translators opted to include a footnote that provides multiple alternative options for translating paraklētos, along with noting the transliterated Greek term Paraclete. See, for example, the NLT rendering of John 14:16 along with the textual footnote:

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate,* who will never leave you.”

                14:16 Or Comforter, or Encourager, or Counselor. Greek reads Paraclete; also in 14:26.

This textual note (which also appears at John 15:26; 16:7) acknowledges the complexity of rendering this Greek term with a single English term and allows the reader to see a fuller picture of what may be involved in the Holy Spirit’s work as described by John.

May we recognize in our own lives the presence and work of the Holy Spirit—the One Who Has Come Alongside Us. Jesus has not left us alone but has sent his Spirit to dwell in us.

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The Greek word diathēkē (pronounced dee-ah-THAY-kay, with a soft TH, as in “thaw”) appears thirty-three times in the New Testament. In English translations, it is usually rendered as “covenant,” even though that word is not used much in everyday speech. But “covenant” is an extremely important word in biblical theology, so English translations, including the NLT, generally retain it.

When Jesus instituted the new covenant at the Last Supper, the Gospel writers used the word diathēkē:

After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant (diathēkē) between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.” (Luke 22:20)

But what did Jesus mean by saying that he was instituting a new covenant? For context, we have to go back to the covenants of the Old Testament. The Hebrew text uses the word berith (typically translated “covenant”) to describe the nature and terms of God’s relationship with his people. God established multiple covenants in the Old Testament. We see the first covenant in the story of Noah:

I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. (Genesis 9:13)

God later established a covenant with Abram (Abraham):

So the Lord made a covenant with Abram that day and said, “I have given this land to your descendants, all the way from the border of Egypt to the great Euphrates River.” (Genesis 15:18)

This covenant with Abraham (and his descendants) forms the basis for God’s intervention on behalf of his people in the Exodus:

God heard their groaning, and he remembered his covenant promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Exodus 2:24)

Following the Exodus, God established another covenant with his people through Moses:

Then Moses took the blood from the basins and splattered it over the people, declaring, “Look, this blood confirms the covenant the Lord has made with you in giving you these instructions” (Exodus 24:8).

Finally, God established a covenant with David, promising that his descendants would reign forever:

But the Lord did not want to destroy David’s dynasty, for he had made a covenant with David and promised that his descendants would continue to rule. (2 Chronicles 21:7; see 2 Samuel 7:1-17)

Throughout the Old Testament the term berith (“covenant”) is used to describe the relationship between God and the people of Israel. As the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the translators employed the Greek term diathēkē, which can refer to an agreement, a will, or a testament, to render berith. So diathēkē was a familiar term to the Jewish people of Jesus’ day. With this background, Jesus indicated that his death (his blood) would institute a new relationship with his people. This notion is explicated in depth in the letter to the Hebrews, for example, in Hebrews 9:15:

That is why he [Christ] is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.

We are very familiar with the term testament (another possible rendering of diathēkē) because we refer to the two parts of the Bible as the Old Testament and the New Testament (though they could also be called the Old Covenant and the New Covenant). The King James Version uses the very term “new testament” in Jesus’ words at the Last Supper:

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament [diathēkē] in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20)

The NLT translators have opted to use the term covenant in line with the familiarity of the Old Testament covenants and its importance as a theological term.

May we be people who fully enter into a covenant relationship with God by accepting Jesus’ gift of an abundant life, which he freely offers to us.

by Jonathan W. Bryant, Senior Editor, Tyndale Bibles

The Greek word Christos appears in the New Testament over five hundred times—not surprising given the association of the term with the New Testament’s central character, Jesus. Upon seeing the English transliteration of the word (Christos), it might seem obvious that English translators would simply use the term “Christ” as a translation. But some translations, including the New Living Translation, have opted not to use “Christ” in all instances.

The term christos (originally an adjective meaning “anointed”) appears in nonbiblical Greek literature, but it took on a particular meaning in Jewish literature in relation to the Hebrew term mashiach, which also means “anointed.” This Hebrew term could be used in relation to an individual who was anointed with oil and thus set apart for a special office, such as a priest or a king (for example, David, as seen in 2 Samuel 23:1). As the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the translators employed the Greek term christos to render mashiach.

During the period between the Old and New Testaments, messianic expectations became more developed, as seen, for example, in the communities that produced the literature now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripture passages such as 2 Samuel 7:1-17, Isaiah 11:1-5, Daniel 7:13-14, and Zechariah 3:8 offered hope that God would send a great “Anointed One” who would deliver his people. Such ideas and texts stood in the background of Jewish thought in the first century AD when Jesus entered the scene. Jesus’ early Jewish followers began to identify Jesus as the mashiach, the Messiah (see, for example, Peter’s confession in Mark 8:29), undoubtedly using the term mashiach (or the related Aramaic term meshicha). As Jesus’ followers began to record in the Greek language the stories of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection, they used the Greek term christos.

The NLT translators opted to translate christos as “Messiah” throughout the Gospels and Acts when the context assumes a Jewish audience (see, for example, Mark 8:29), while translating the term as “Christ” whenever a predominantly Gentile audience can be assumed (which is typically the case in the Letters and Revelation; see, for example, Romans 5:9). By doing so, the NLT retains the connection between the Greek term christos and the Hebrew term mashiach, treating the English words “Messiah” and “Christ” synonymously since both terms have the same meaning. There is actually a precedent for using the terms interchangeably in the New Testament itself. The Gospel writer John twice used the Greek term Μεσσίας (Messias), which is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew mashiach, placed once on the lips of the disciple Andrew (John 1:41) and once on the lips of the Samaritan woman who met Jesus at a well (John 4:25). In both cases, Jewish messianic expectations are in view; and in both cases, the interchangeability of Messias and Christos is highlighted.

As the Good News concerning Jesus spread across the Roman Empire, the term Christos essentially became a proper name for Jesus among his followers (who themselves came to be known as Christianoi, “Christians”; see Acts 11:26). The connection between the term christos and the expectations regarding a coming mashiach (“Messiah”) would have been clear to most Jewish believers.

As we reflect on this term, let us remember how Jesus, the Anointed One, fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament. His coming was according to God’s plan, spoken through the prophets. And as the Anointed One, he perfectly fulfilled the roles of both king and priest, ushering in the Kingdom of God and allowing us access to his throne.

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The New Testament uses the term magos in two different contexts: In Matthew 2, it refers to the magi from the east who came to visit the young Jesus, and in Acts 13, it is used to describe a sorcerer or magician named Bar-Jesus (note the relationship of the word magos and our word magician). Our focus here is on the magi who are traditionally part of the Christmas story and whose arrival to visit the Christ child is commemorated in the Christian celebration of Epiphany.

Matthew’s text tells us only a few details about the magoi (this is the plural form) who came to visit Jesus. We don’t know their names or their number, though ancient legend says there were three (corresponding to the number of gifts brought to Jesus), and that their names were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. We do know that they came “from eastern lands” (Matthew 2:1). But which eastern lands exactly, we don’t know. One legend states that they were kings from Arabia, Ethiopia, and Tarsus. These magoi may have been part of a priestly class of Persia, and as Matthew 2 indicates, they were involved in observing the stars.

The question for Bible translators is how to render this term in the receptor language (in our case, English). As in many passages, William Tyndale’s translation proved quite influential in the English-speaking world. In Matthew 2:1, Tyndale rendered magoi as “wyse men.” The KJV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, and ESV follow suit and call these visitors “wise men.” The NASB and NIV break ranks and simply transliterate the term as “magi.” (But the NIRV, which is an adaptation of the NIV for young readers, uses the traditional term “wise men.”) The Living Bible and the J. B. Phillips translation both use the term “astrologers,” and The Message calls the magoi “a band of scholars.”

The translators of the NLT had long discussions about this term. In the end, they decided to retain the traditional term “wise men.” They reasoned that since the term “wise men” was so familiar (every child has heard the story of the “wise men” with their gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh), it would be prudent to use this general term—and avoid potential confusion. But the NLT does add a footnote that says, “Or royal astrologers; Greek reads magi.”

Is “magi” more accurate than “wise men”? Only in the sense that it is a transliteration (i.e., a transferring of the sounds from one language to another) of the Greek word into English. Do most readers understand the transliterated term “magi”? If they don’t, it seems that we do them no favor by using an unfamiliar term.

Whether we call them “magi” or “wise men,” let us learn a life lesson from them. When they arrived in Jerusalem, they asked, “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose, and we have come to worship him.” I have a coffee mug that reminds me “Wise men still seek him.” May we also seek and worship him—no matter our backgrounds, prior associations, or occupations. And may we recognize, along with these first Gentile worshipers of Jesus, that the hope and salvation provided through Jesus is for all people.

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The New Living Translation is careful to translate the meaning of the original language (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic) texts rather than simply providing a word-for-word, literal rendering of those texts. This allows the reader to read the text and understand its meaning with minimal confusion. For example, the Hebrew text uses the words Sheol and Abaddon in numerous passages, but how many readers know what those terms mean?

Sheol

Sheol (pronounced sheh-OLE) is the Hebrew term for the place of the dead. It is used 66 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Since it is not a term that we use in English, the NLT does not use the transliterated word Sheol. Typically, the NLT translates the term as “the grave” or “the underworld” or “the place of the dead.” Here are a few examples:

Job 17:13
What if I go to the grave*
   and make my bed in darkness?
      _{17:13 Hebrew to Sheol; also in 17:16.}

Job 26:6
The underworld* is naked in God’s presence.
   The place of destruction* is uncovered.
        _{^{26:6 Hebrew Sheol
        26:6b Hebrew Abaddon.}}

Isaiah 38:10
I said, “In the prime of my life,
    must I now enter the place of the dead?*
    Am I to be robbed of the rest of my years?”
        _{^{38:10 Hebrew enter the gates of Sheol?}}

But note that the NLT translators have provided a footnote in each of these verses to show that the Hebrew term is Sheol. This is especially helpful for readers who find that other translations use the term Sheol.

Interestingly, the King James Version (KJV), which is often quite literal in its translation methodology, does not use the transliteration Sheol in any of the passages where that term is used in the Hebrew text. Neither does the New International Version (NIV). But the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) all render it as Sheol in each instance.

Abaddon

In Job 26:6 (cited above) we also find the term Abaddon (pronounced ah-bah-DOHN), which is used five times in the Old Testament, always in poetic literature. This term refers to destruction or a place of ruin. The NLT renders it here as “the place of destruction”:

The underworld* is naked in God’s presence.
   The place of destruction* is uncovered.
      _{26:6a Hebrew Sheol.
      26:6b Hebrew Abaddon.}

In a few passages, Abaddon is personified, alongside Death:

Job 28:22
Destruction* and Death say,
   ‘We’ve heard only rumors of where wisdom can be found.’
      _{28:22 Hebrew Abaddon.}

Proverbs 15:11
Even Death and Destruction* hold no secrets from the Lord.
   How much more does he know the human heart!
       _{15:11 Hebrew Sheol and Abaddon.}

Proverbs 27:20
Just as Death and Destruction* are never satisfied,
   so human desire is never satisfied.
      _{27:20 Hebrew Sheol and Abaddon.}

Notice that in the latter two passages, Sheol and Abaddon appear together. And once again, the NLT translators have provided a footnote in each of these passages to show a literal rendering of the terms.

As with Sheol, the KJV and the NIV, like the NLT, do not use the transliterated term Abaddon, while the ESV, NASB, and NRSV do use that term.

Abaddon is also used once in the New Testament, in Revelation 9:11:

Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon—the Destroyer. 

The Greek term here (Ἀβαδδών) is simply a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Abaddon, already personified in the Old Testament (see above), is here the name of a demonic angel from the bottomless pit. To help the reader, the NLT includes a definition of the terms Abaddon and Apollyon. Both words in this context mean “the Destroyer.” The NIV similarly includes a parenthetical explanation that these terms mean “Destroyer.”

By translating the meaning of these terms, rather than simply transliterating the terms, the NLT allows readers to avoid confusion regarding unfamiliar terms. And by including the terms in a footnote, interested readers can see the terms behind the translation.

As we read these texts, may we remember that we have an enemy who wants to destroy us. And may we trust in Jesus, who has conquered death and the grave (see 1 Corinthians 15:54-57).

by Mark D. Taylor, NLT Bible Translation Committee

The Greek noun grammateus (plural grammateis) is used sixty-three times in the New Testament, almost always in reference to members of a group of Jewish religious leaders. The one exception to this usage is found in Acts 19:35, where the term refers to a city official in Ephesus.

With respect to its typical New Testament usage, this term has traditionally been translated as “scribes,” going all the way back to John Wycliffe’s translation. Similarly, William Tyndale, the KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and ESV all render the term as “scribes.” This rendering aligns with the term’s common usage in the Greco-Roman world to refer to someone who composed official documents. But in its New Testament context, the term means more than simply a person who writes out a text. In the first-century Jewish world, the grammateis were also trained as experts in the law of Moses and thus became authoritative interpreters of that law.

The NIV thus translates the term as “teachers of the law.” The NLT is a bit more expansive, rendering the term as “teachers of religious law,” drawing a distinction between the Roman law and the religious law of the Jews. The grammateis were not interested in teaching the Roman law, though that law was very present in the lives of their people. Instead, their role was to teach the religious law of the Jewish community. This role gave them a great deal of influence over the Jewish people, though in Mark 1:22 we get a hint that their authority was sometimes seen as limited. We read about the response of those who listened to Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue of Capernaum: “The people were amazed at his teaching, for he taught with real authority—quite unlike the teachers of religious law.”

In teaching the law of Moses, the grammateis tended also to add their own interpretations of it, often building new and impossible restrictions on top of the original law. In a rebuke of such practices, Jesus stated: “What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either” (Matthew 23:13). Jesus understood the influence of the grammateis and spoke harshly against them for leading people away from the true meaning of God’s law.

In a culture where many people could not read or write, the grammateis had an important role as they could write letters or important documents. But in the Jewish communities of the first century, they were more than secretaries (scribes). They were teachers of religious law who influenced generations of learners, but not always in the right direction. Jesus was disdainful of their hypocrisy. May we learn from their example and not be hypocrites in our own lives as we try to teach God’s Word to our children, grandchildren, and others.