# Translation of Rom 12:17/Did The KJV Translators Get It Wrong?



## KMK (Sep 2, 2008)

> Rom 12:17 KJV Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.





> Rom 12:17 ESV Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.



C. Hodge had this to say in his commentary on Romans:



> Provide things honest in the sight of all men. *Our translation of this clause is not very happy, as it suggests an idea foreign to the meaning of the original*. Paul does not mean to direct us to make provision for ourselves or families in an honest manner, which is probably the sense commonly attached to the passage by the English reader, but to act in such a manner as to command the confidence and good opinion of men. In this view, the connection of this with the preceding member of the verse is obvious. ' We must not recompense evil for evil, but act in such a way as to commend ourselves to the consciences of all men.' *There should not, therefore, be a period after the word evil*, since this clause assigns a motive for the discharge of the duty enjoined in the first.



What is the conventional wisdom? Is there any substantial change to the meaning of the text in the modern versions?


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 2, 2008)

John Gill:



> Romans 12:17
> 
> Ver. 17. Recompence to no man evil for evil,.... Neither evil words for evil words, railing for railing; nor evil deeds for evil deeds, one ill turn for another; nor the evil of punishment for the evil of fault, unless it be by persons, who under God have an authority to inflict it; as the civil magistrate, who "is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil", Ro 13:4; but private revenge is what is here forbidden:
> 
> providing things honest in the sight of all men. The Vulgate Latin reads, "not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men"; and the Alexandrian copy reads, "in the sight of God and in the sight of men", which clause seems to have crept in here, out of 2Co 8:21. The words are not to be understood of a man's providing things honest, decent, and commendable, as suitable food and raiment for his family, in the sight of all men, to the honour of religion, and the credit of his profession, which is right to be done; but of a provident, thoughtful, and studious concern, to do everything that is laudable and of good report among men. The Syriac version renders the words alter this manner, atbj Nwdbetd Nwkl ljbtn ala, "but be careful to do well", or exercise beneficence before all men; either restraining it to acts of beneficence, even to them that do us ill, in opposition to rendering evil to them; or applying it to all offices of humanity, and every good work, which are to be done in the sight of men; not merely to be seen of them, and in a vainglorious way, in order to obtain their esteem and applause, as did the Pharisees; but to avoid offence; to put, to silence, by well doing, the ignorance of wicked men; and to shame them that falsely accuse the good conversation of the saints; and to recommend the Gospel and true religion, and win men over to it thereby, and give an occasion to them of glorifying God



John Calvin:



> 17. Repaying to no one, etc. This differs but little from what shortly after follows, except that revenge is more than the kind of repaying of which he speaks here; for we render evil for evil sometimes, even when we exact not the requiting of an injury, as when we treat unkindly those who do us no good. We are indeed wont to form an estimate of the deserts of each, or of what they merit at our hands, so that we may confer our benefits on those, by whom we have been already obliged, or from whom we expect something: and again, when any one denies help to us when we need it, we, by returning like for like, as they say, do not help him in time of need, any more than he assisted us. There are also other instances of the same kind, in which evil is rendered for evil, when there is no open revenge.
> Providing good things, etc. I no not disapprove of the rendering of Erasmus, “Providently preparing,” (Provide parantes) but I prefer a literal rendering. As every one is more than justly devoted to his own advantage, and provident in avoiding losses, Paul seems to require a care and an attention of another kind. What is meant is, that we ought diligently to labor, that all may be edified by our honest dealings. For as purity of conscience is necessary for us before God, so uprightness of character before men is not to be neglected: for since it is meet that God should be glorified by our good deeds, even so much is wanting to his glory, as there is a deficiency of what is praiseworthy in us; and not only the glory of God is thus obscured, but he is branded with reproach; for whatever sin we commit, the ignorant employ it for the purpose of calumniating the gospel.
> But when we are bidden to prepare good things before men, we must at the same time notice for what purpose: it is not indeed that men may admire and praise us, as this is a desire which Christ carefully forbids us to indulge, since he bids us to admit God alone as the witness of our good deeds, to the exclusion of all men; but that their minds being elevated to God, they may give praise to him, that by our example they may be stirred up to the practice of righteousness, that they may, in a word, perceive the good and the sweet odor of our life, by which they may be allured to the love of God. But if we are evil spoken of for the name of Christ, we are by no means to neglect to provide good things before men: for fulfilled then shall be that saying, that we are counted as false, and are yet true. (2 Corinthians 6:8.)



I don't think the problem is with the rendering, but with our current (mid 19th century forward) lack of understanding of the rendering. Besides the Geneva Version reads, 17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Procure things honest in the sight of all men. They didn't have a problem understanding it. Another good reason for us to learn Sacred English.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 3, 2008)

I went back and reread your quote from Hodge. I didn't get the probable 'sense commonly attached to the passage by the English reader.' I understood it according to Calvin and Gill's exposition.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 3, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> Another good reason for us to learn Sacred English.



Or to update the "sacred" English so anyone can understand it.


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Another good reason for us to learn Sacred English.
> ...



Can you elaborate?


----------



## TimV (Sep 3, 2008)

> Can you elaborate?



16th century English isn't holy. It's kind of like 12th century Albanian. worshipping either is idolatry. There's a tree in my yard I really like, but I don't call it Sacred, nor do I expect others to acknowledge it as such.

I'm thinking about starting a poll to see how many KJ onlies are monolingual. It's a theory I have about worshipping a certain form of a particular language. Is there a Sacred Mongolian? A Sacred Key'agana? If so, if one wants to learn a new language should one learn the Sacred form?


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2008)

TimV said:


> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> 
> 
> 16th century English isn't holy.



I will let Chris answer for himself, but I don't think your definition of "sacred" is what he had in mind.


----------



## TimV (Sep 3, 2008)

> I will let Chris answer for himself, but I don't think your definition of "sacred" is what he had in mind.



That could be, but this is an international English speaking forum, and we've got to use words with meanings that we hold in common.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 3, 2008)

I agree, "thee" and "thou" and "eth" suffixes, etc... are not sacred. The Bible needs to be in the vernacular.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 3, 2008)

What they said.

When you speak to your neighbors and coworkers, do you speak in King James English? When you talk to your wife or mother, do you use King James English? When you (or your pastor) preaches on Sunday morning, is the entire service in King James English?

My point? WE DON'T SPEAK KING JAMES ENGLISH. I think it's foolish to assume that we need to learn King James English because it's "sacred."

If someone likes the King James because of its relationship with the textus receptus, great. Maybe you can use the TR as a basis for a translation my neighbors can understand. But if you like the King James because of its "sacred" magical hard-to-understand words, then we have a problem.

Now, if the meaning of "sacred" was refering to the Bible's words in general, then okay. But if the KJV's words are somehow more sacred than another version (or language!), then we have a problem.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 3, 2008)

The English of the AV was not the vernacular. It was a subset of English. At the time the AV was translated no one spoke that way. The word 'sacred' is referring to the subset of English used to accurately render the Biblical texts. Not to its quality. It is is also called Biblical English. It is called such because of its association with the Biblical texts.

In order to accurately render the difference between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns from the Greek and Hebrew into English, you will need to keep the thou/you distinction. Any version which fails to make the thou/you distinction is less accurate than one that does. The verb endings in this subset of English correspond to the Hebrew and Greek verbs forms. (Yes even the aorist.) So if you wish to give up accuracy in a translation, have it translated into the vernacular of English.

BTW, learning these various distinction is not difficult. A group of adult men mastered it in 15 minutes. This included the various verb endings which corresponded to the various verb forms in Hebrew & Greek. So difficulty cannot be used as an excuse. And neither can the claim of not knowing a word. After all we use a dictionary when we read other books in which we find a word we do not know.

Lowth's English Grammar is a good place to begin for understanding this subset of English.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 3, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> The English of the AV was not the vernacular. It was a subset of English. At the time the AV was translated no one spoke that way. The word 'sacred' is referring to the subset of English used to accurately render the Biblical texts. Not to its quality. It is is also called Biblical English. It is called such because of its association with the Biblical texts.
> 
> In order to accurately render the difference between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns from the Greek and Hebrew into English, you will need to keep the thou/you distinction. Any version which fails to make the thou/you distinction is less accurate than one that does. The verb endings in this subset of English correspond to the Hebrew and Greek verbs forms. (Yes even the aorist.) So if you wish to give up accuracy in a translation, have it translated into the vernacular of English.
> 
> ...



I don't buy that for a minute. 

1. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to argue that because men wanted the Bible in a distinct dialect - even after the Reformation where everyone from Wycliffe to Luther translated it into the vernacular - that we are somehow obligated to perpetuate that obsurd and pretentious practice. It smacks of the same air employed by Papists to argue that Latin was "sacred." 

2. I've read the KJV English in too many non-biblical places for me to buy the idea that this was a "special" creation for use with the Bible. 

3. Your argument that the subject/object distinction of the "thee" "thou" difference is weak. In modern English "you" as a subject or object is indicated by the placement of the word in the sentence and by its syntatical relationship with other words. Example: You hit the boy. ("You" is the subject.) The boy hit you. ("You" is the direct object.) Don't tell me that I have to say "Thou hit the boy" or "The boy hit thee" for me to convey subject/object accurately.


----------



## TimV (Sep 3, 2008)

> In order to accurately render the difference between 2nd person singular and plural pronouns from the Greek and Hebrew into English, you will need to keep the thou/you distinction. Any version which fails to make the thou/you distinction is less accurate than one that does.


That's simply not true, and bad logic. Do you know any other languages than English? No language can be translated word for word. "He gave up the ghost" is one word in Greek.

Afrikaans has singular and plural pronouns, but people go back and forth from that language to English without problems.

As in all things, Christ is our example, and He spoke to people in their own languages. If an audience didn't know Hebrew or Greek, He spoke in Aramaic.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Sep 3, 2008)

Kim G said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Another good reason for us to learn Sacred English.
> ...



No, that is exactly backwards from the intent of goal of sacred translation, which is why modern Bibles no longer speak to men with Authority.

When the Geneva, Authorized Version and Dutch Bibles were developed Protestants worked, as faithfully as possible, to represent the original tongues into the native languages of the respective societies. This is in direct contrast to the modern principle.

That is to say the Reformers work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. Hence, the very first task in order to fulfill that goal is to conform the language to Scripture, not Scripture to the language.

In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people
in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. This is a standard presupposition today and it is exactly backwards to the presuppositions held to when the great Protestant translations were performed.

The modern principles are represented most faithfully in mens attitude to the Authority of the Word of God in our society, people then approach the Scripture conforming God and the Church to the presupposition of secular humanism, which holds linguistic priority in their presuppositions.


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2008)

The diatribe against the Sacred/Biblical English of the KJV is 

The point that was made, that the use of the period in Rom 12:17 falls within the overall objective of the KJV translators. They had a specific kind of English in mind (call it what you want) and the use of the period is perfectly in line with the Reformers view of the meaning of the passage.

The question at hand is, does Hodge have a point, or is he simply not understanding the Sacred/Biblical English used by the translators?

PS I have never before heard anyone argue that the Bible could be translated into "Modern" English (whatever that is) without losing accuracy. Perhaps a new thread could be started with some citations or examples. That would be interesting.


----------



## JohnGill (Sep 3, 2008)

KMK said:


> The diatribe against the Sacred/Biblical English of the KJV is
> 
> The point that was made, that the use of the period in Rom 12:17 falls within the overall objective of the KJV translators. They had a specific kind of English in mind (call it what you want) and the use of the period is perfectly in line with the Reformers view of the meaning of the passage.
> 
> ...



I would say he didn't understand the English at hand. Even with the period I have never understood it according to his 'common meaning.' With or without the period the overall context of the passage makes the 'provide things honest...' refer back to the 'recompense to no man..." I don't know how he managed to get providing for families in the verse. The Westminster Larger Catechism had no problem with it.



> Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] *forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744]* comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]
> 
> [744] Matthew 5:24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Ephesians 5:2, 32. And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. *Romans 12:17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.*



Did Hodge think verse 16 was referring to unbelievers or believers? This might have something to do with his understanding.

Dr. Alan Cairns in his sermon (minute 38) on this verse in Romans did not understand it as Hodge did.

(To the PS: The Trinitarian Bible Society has some articles that deal with the necessity of thou(1st pers.)/you(2nd pers.) distinction in a translation for accuracy and other such issues. I believe they also have an article dealing with 2 Peter 3:16 and how if it is hard to be understood in the Greek, but not in the English, you have interpretation and not translation.)


----------



## TimV (Sep 3, 2008)

> No, that is exactly backwards from the intent of goal of sacred translation, which is why modern Bibles no longer speak to men with Authority.



Is Authority a characteristic like Dead, that you either are or aren't? Or is Authority a characteristic like Blonde, where there is a gradient between someone with hair almost white and someone with hair light brown?

If Authority is something a Bible translation either has or doesn't have, could you, Thomas, name all the English translations that have Authority? And if not, could you list a few common translations in order of the amount of Authority that they have on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 means no Authority whatsoever and 100 being the true and exact Word of God?


----------



## KMK (Sep 3, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> > Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
> >
> > A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] *forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744]* comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]
> >
> > [744] Matthew 5:24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Ephesians 5:2, 32. And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.... This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. *Romans 12:17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.*



Thank you for posting this. I hadn't thought to consult the LC.



JohnGill said:


> Did Hodge think verse 16 was referring to unbelievers or believers? This might have something to do with his understanding.



Hodge sees a change in verse 14 from brotherly love to love for your enemies. Although, many commentators do not see the same break. (Which is strange to me because it seems so obvious)



JohnGill said:


> Dr. Alan Cairns in his sermon (minute 38) on this verse in Romans did not understand it as Hodge did.



I will listen to it tomorrow.



JohnGill said:


> (To the PS: The Trinitarian Bible Society has some articles that deal with the necessity of thou(1st pers.)/you(2nd pers.) distinction in a translation for accuracy and other such issues. I believe they also have an article dealing with 2 Peter 3:16 and how if it is hard to be understood in the Greek, but not in the English, you have interpretation and not translation.)



Can you point me to specific issues?


----------

