Good and bad translations of John 3:20-21

    Is it hard to translate the gospel of John? Not really. Its diction in the original is clean and terse. The author relies on a bundle of bright oppositions expressed through cascades of words that repeat. Why do so many modern translations take away from the text by adding to it? Why set aside repetends and parallelisms in the source text if they can be reproduced? It boggles the mind. A faithful translation does well to mirror the style of its source text.

    The Greek of John 3:20-21 goes like this:

πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων
μισεῖ τὸ φῶς
καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς
ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ.

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν
ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ φῶς
ἵνα φανερωθῇ αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα  
ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα.

My attempt at a faithful translation:

For every one who does wrong
hates the light
and doesn’t come to the light
so their deeds may not be exposed.

But whoever does the truth
comes to the light
so their deeds may be seen
to have been done in God.

    I italicize words in NIV 2011 that take away from the text by adding to it or rewriting its grammar. The logic of the whole is obscured by these additions and revisions.

Everyone who does evil
hates the light,
and will not come into the light
for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

But whoever lives by the truth
comes into the light,
so that it may be seen plainly
that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

    NIV 2011 avoids the generic “he.” I distrust the pattern of avoidance, but I side with NIV 2011’s singular-plural switch in this passage. It is not obtrusive and does not pluralize on the semantic level.

    On the other hand, NIV 2011 does not reproduce several of the repetends and parallelisms of the source text. It adds (1) a tense switch where there isn’t one [hates – will not come]; (2) translates the same expression in different ways where repetition is meaningful [deeds – what they have done; (3) eliminates a modal repetition [for fear that x will be – so that x may be seen]; (4) eliminates a grammatical parallelism [does evil – lives by the truth]; (5) adds an adverb [plainly]; (6) paraphrases a simple noun phrase [his deeds]  with a complex noun phrase [what they have done]; (7) changes “in” to “in the sight of,” a translation choice that obliterates the bold assertion of the source text. In addition, NIV eliminates the connection with the preceding by not starting out with “For.” I realize NIV makes all these changes for the sake of greater intelligibility. But I wonder.

    NLT, per its self-presentation (The Word Made Clear), clarifies.

All who do evil
hate the light
and refuse to go near it
for fear their sins will be exposed.

But those who do what is right
come to the light
so others can see
that they are doing what God wants.

    A snappy translation, but at what cost. Repetends and parallelisms in the original are not respected. Once again a translation choice (they are doing what God wants for their actions were done in God) obliterates the bold assertion of the Vorlage. It as if the translators found it difficult to imagine that a person comes to the light such that actions done beforehand are shown to have been done in God. The gall of God’s prevenience! Furthermore, NLT pluralizes the subject, an unnecessary modification. Finally, I am astounded by NLT’s elimination of a key Johannine concept in translation: “truth” or what is “true.”

    NRSV adheres to the diction of the Greek with greater strictness than NIV 2011 and NLT:  

For all who do evil
hate the light
and do not come to the light,
so that their deeds may not be exposed.

But those who do what is true
come to the light,
so that it may be clearly seen
that their deeds have been done in God.

    Note how the repetends and parallelisms in the original are in general respected. Furthermore, the bold assertion – that their deeds may be seen to have been done in God – is preserved. Unfortunately, like NLT, NRSV pluralizes the subject; still, a relatively minor detail.

    This is how ESV stacks up.

Everyone who does evil
hates the light
and does not come to the light,
lest his works should be exposed.

But whoever does what is true
comes to the light,
so that it may be clearly seen
that his works have been carried out in God.

    Almost as good as NRSV, though the translation is marred by the preservation of archaic vocabulary (lest . . . should), and have been carried out is not nearly as snappy as have been done.   

    In my judgment, NRSV in this passage is hands down better than NIV and NLT and marginally better than ESV.

    I am not a faithful admirer of Rob Bell. I would argue with him about many things. Still, I have immense respect for his ability to boldly go where few evangelicals dare to go and do so within the confines of the great tradition. I mention him because this Rob Bell video, though there are weak moments in his riff, is the most effective commentary I have heard on John 3:20-21.

Comments

[Mike Gantt]

I love John 3;20-21 - if one can be said to love something that disciplines so severely.

To think that walking with a consciousness of the Lord Jesus' loving and righteous eyes upon our hearts has such a powerful cleansing and disinfecting effect on the thoughts of our hearts. It truly is a life-changing concept.

I didn't gather that from the Rob Bell video. However, perhaps he's a better understander and/or communicator than I am. If others see his video and are drawn to Christ, then I am quite happy.

[Unspecified Gender]

If a person seeks to use a third party singular pronoun for a referent of unspecified gender in modern idiomatic English, they are not doing a singular-plural switch if they use the pronoun 'they'...

[Carl Kinbar]

Thanks, John. Your implicit translation theory is exemplary; I intend to use this in my next class. Or can you point me to a post that deals similarly with a Hebrew text?

[JohnFH]

Unspecified Gender,

I make the same point in my post. That is, if you begin with a singular and switch to a plural, you have not pluralized the subject. However, if you pluralize from the start, you have pluralized the subject. Pluralizing the subject in this passage drains it of part of its thrust.

[JohnFH]

Hi Mike,

Living with an awareness that we do so coram Deo, in the presence of God, is essential to a healthy life, but the thrust of this particular passage is different. Perhaps you are overlooking it.

Are you able to affirm that for many, in fact for all, their come to Jesus moment involves not only an awareness of past sin, but also an after-the-fact ratification that a great deal of what they had done "without God" was actually done in God?

Rob Bell captures this dimension of theo-anthropology well. Most evangelicals do not.

[JohnFH]

Hi Karl,

Try my posts on Psalm 1.

[Mike Gantt]

John,

If you're saying that evangelicals tend to bifurcate life into that which came before the sinner's prayer and that which comes after, seeing God inactive in the former and active only in the later, then I see your point and agree with it. And I agree that this passage affirms it.

However, given that these words are Jesus' conclusion to His interaction with Nicodemus, and given that Nicodemus had come to Him "by night," I have to believe that His fundamental point is that living coram Deo (that is to say, in the light and not in the darkness...or night, a point Nick would surely catch) is the right path. That is, movement (change) is in mind. Corum Deo is not merely a state of being (that would be to adopt the evangelical view) but rather it is a progression toward greater and greater light and we submit more and more of our thousands of daily thoughts to His view.

That God may help us do right even in our darkness is comforting - but especially because to Him who has, shall more be given, we can be comforted even more by coming closer and closer to the light of Jesus. That is, in coming to the light we have, we will find more and more light.

As comforted as I am that God has been active in my life even when I thought He wasn't, I am even more comforted by the hope that shall know and understand Him better as I submit every thought I have to His loving and righteous sight.

Sorry for the quantity and clumsiness of my words here.

[JohnFH]

Mike,

Thanks for pushing back. You are right that the entire chapter goes beyond the particular emphases of the conclusion.

I differ with you with respect to the chapter as a whole in that I see a greater emphasis there on what God does than on what we do (or don't do). That's one reason why I like Rob Bell's video. It is about God's song, the melody he plays in and through us and despite us whether we are aware of it or not.

There is much salvation in knowing that such is the case; the gospel is for hearing. But God saves apart from our hearing in anticipation of saving through our hearing, now or in the age to come. Another scriptural teaching overlooked by many Christians, but the teaching is clear as punch.

[Mike Gantt]

John,

Because I believe that the Scriptures teach that everyone is going to heaven I can fully embrace what you are saying, even though our respective emphases may lie in different places.

[JohnFH]

You and Origen (but not Rob Bell). Always good to chat.

[spielautomat trick]

Eigentlich ein brauchbarer Beitrag, nur kannst du beim nächsten Mal ein wenig ausführlicher sein? Das wäre in der Tat genial :)

[JohnFH]

Ich finde es wahnsinnig, dass mein Beitrag interessant bei Ihnen scheint.

[Gary Simmons]

I agree with your argument here, John. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with presents and perfects in GJohn when it's in an explanatory section rather than the narrative. But, preserving tense concordance as well as lexical/thematic concordance should definitely be important for a book so centered around key concepts used fluidly -- such as "water and spirit" earlier in the chapter.

Though there was always a BBB post on the matter, I think it's probably impossible to get across the utter ambiguity of the expression.

Side note: is "lest...should" correct archaic grammar? I had never heard it in conjunction with "should".

[Theophrastus]

I had never heard it in conjunction with "should".

Gary -- it is a pity you have not yet had a chance to read the KJV -- when you do, you'll enjoy Ephesians 2:9.

It will also be a revelation when you have a chance to read Shakespeare -- I'm sure the first line of Sonnet 72 will stand out.

Similarly, I hope someday you have a chance to read Milton -- I know you'll like the argument (preface) to Book 9 of "Paradise Lost."

PS: I don't agree that "lest" is archaic. It is a word that often I use.

[Mike Gantt]

John,

I'm so glad you spoke up for the currency of "lest." I was so disappointed when the 1995 edition of the NASB removed it, presumably for being arcane.

It's such a useful word, even if it sounds a bit formal.

(Perhaps people today simply consider formality archaic?)

[JohnFH]

Mike,

Lest I perpetuate a case of mistaken identification, I should note that Theo is the one standing up for "lest," not me.

[TheraP]

Forgive if this sounds like I'm veering off of your post, but for whatever reason the translation of "one" or "many" reminds me of Psalm 1. I googled and checked your translation of Psalm 1 and I see you use "everyone" which could be perhaps "every one" - and I note that you use "everyone" here also for the translation of this bit of John.

My interest is language in a sense and the psychological impact of language upon us, I suppose. But also the spiritual impact of language. How it shapes us. How the "Word" dwells within us - and shapes us.

So for whatever reason, having read your post, this passage from John will (now) always make me think of Psalm 1. One is in Hebrew, one in Greek of course. And I know neither. But how powerful it is, it seems to me, that the Spirit (in the language) affects us individually and does not just speak to us as a conglomeration. In Psalm 1, it actually seems that the evil doers are a conglomeration, whereas the one who seeks YHWH is spoken of as an individual.

For whatever reason this thought reminds me of how dictators "play" upon groups as a kind of mass hypnosis - and evil becomes so insidious in both word and deed. The frailty of the "lone voice" under such conditions. The "lone voice" and the Power of the Light. The difference between the Assembly of the Righteous perhaps (like the Body of Christ) as NOT a conglomerate but Persons individually exposing themselves to the Light and thus entering into a different Life (together).

I'm groping for something here and I'm really not certain if I'm making sense. (but it's what struck me in your post)

[JohnFH]

Your eye is lucid, Thera. You see what I was trying to point out - and you see much more, and very well, beyond that.

I see your point about "everyone." I will change "everyone" to "every one."

[TheraP]

Oops! I now look back at your translation of Psalm 1 - and I goofed. You do clearly say "the one" (not everyone) I think I was mistakenly looking twice at this post (even though I have the other window open as well).
Even so... I think my point actually is accentuated, since so many translations miss the "one" in Psalm 1 - just as you say they do in John.

[Chris]

Quick theological question...

so their deeds may be seen
to have been done in God.

What does "so their deeds may be seen
to have been done in God." mean?

Specifically - "done in God" - what does that mean?

[Chariots of Fire 5]

I know this is a bit of topic, but when I read this post my only though was why do translations add words? The only reasoning’s I can come up with is that the way they write it is actually what they read or they add words to make their perception of the verse more notable and easier for others (who do not always understand the language of the Bible, like me) to understand and make interpretations of the verse.