"Good will towards men" --- mistranslation, and why?

[HomeschoolDad]

Once again, we get to hear and see on Christmas cards, scenes and murals in shopping malls, and just now, on a TV commercial I was watching, “peace to all, good will to men”.

It’s a sweet thought, but only one problem…

The Bible doesn’t say that. Luke 2:14 doesn’t say that.

Latin Vulgate:
Gloria in altissimis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis

Douay-Rheims (Challoner):
Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.

Knox Bible:
Glory to God in high heaven, and peace on earth to men that are God’s friends.

RSV Catholic Edition:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!

And in the King James Bible:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

I would welcome anyone who adheres to the KJV, to explain why their translation is correct and all of these others are wrong. Generally speaking, I like and admire the KJV, but this is one case where I have to reserve my admiration.

Comments?

 

[Wesrock]

Isn’t it down to the source manuscripts and the KJV using the textus receptus? I apologize if I butchered that, I’m not one of the scripture/manuscript scholars here.

Edit: From my quick double checking, it is because the translations use different manuscript sources. And the difference all comes down to just one letter changing the case of a single word.

 

[JerryZ]

good will toward men.

Yes I agree that the words totally upended the meaning of the original.
As for why, perhaps others can elucidate further!

Peace!

 

[Dan_Defender]

The original Greek Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας
would translate as ‘men of good will’

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The original Greek Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας
would translate as ‘men of good will’

I actually looked that up (16th-century Koine Greek version), but I know very, very little Greek — I can basically decipher words here and there, and that’s it — and did not want to “swim out to the deep end” speculating about it. Thanks for filling in my knowledge gap. How far removed is any given Koine Greek version from Luke’s original putting-pen-to-paper (or papyrus, or parchment, or whatever) version? Do we have any way of knowing that? (Might be good at this point, to note that the Holy Spirit protected the sacred authors from being materially mistranslated by the Church. Modern scholars have no such guarantee.)

Isn’t it down to the source manuscripts and the KJV using the textus receptus? I apologize if I butchered that, I’m not one of the scripture/manuscript scholars here.

Edit: From my quick double checking, it is because the translations use different manuscript sources. And the difference all comes down to just one letter changing the case of a single word.

I thought of that sort of thing, but as with the situation above, I’d be far out of my wheelhouse on that one. I’d like to hear a Protestant say “yes, we used the Textus Receptus, that’s why it’s translated the way it is, we’re right, and you’re wrong”. That would smack of KJV-onlyism.

 

[Gorgias]

The original Greek Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας
would translate as ‘men of good will’

Some manuscripts render it εὐδοκία, not εὐδοκίας.

These tend to get translated as “peace [and] good-will to men” (although there’s a spate of them which insert the notion that it’s God’s good-will that’s being talked about).

How far removed is any given Koine Greek version from Luke’s original putting-pen-to-paper (or papyrus, or parchment, or whatever) version? Do we have any way of knowing that?

As early, perhaps, as late 2nd century or early 3rd century (P75).

How many iterations from it back to Luke? I’m not sure it’s possible to say.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Dan_Defender:

The original Greek Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας

would translate as ‘men of good will’

Some manuscripts render it εὐδοκία , not εὐδοκίας .

These tend to get translated as “peace [and] good-will to men” (although there’s a spate of them which insert the notion that it’s God’s good-will that’s being talked about).

I am happy to know that it is due to an honest difference in translation, or rather, an honest disagreement over which Greek word was used, and what implications that has for the concept. I was simply concerned, in my ignorance, that someone thought " ‘good will to men’ sounds nice, that other thing sounds like you’re snubbing people who aren’t of good will — in their own minds, they might have some very good reasons for that, many people are hurting and many people have a rough time in life — and even if they aren’t, they’re human too, and need our well-wishes just like benevolent people do".

I pay as much attention to what words imply, as to what they actually say. Sometimes more.

 

[BartholomewB]

When I saw the thread title, I thought this was going to be about inclusive language. Luckily it turned out to be about something interesting. I can understand that the extra -s on the end of the word will make a difference to the meaning, but not that the word should simply be omitted, as the KJV editors and translators apparently saw fit to do in this case.

[Edit]
This is the verse in the Good News Bible, a translation that I have recently come to hold in high esteem:

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!”

“Those” instead of “men” is obviously a concession to the inclusive languagists, but it sounds okay to my ear. But what about “with whom he is pleased”? Is that an accurate translation of either eudokia or eudokias?

@OddBird?
@Bithynius?

 

[po18guy]

Risking thread drift here, but it’s kinda related.
Jesus never said “Who do people say I am?” Saint Paul never wrote “Brothers and sisters…” We hear both incessantly. Wouldn’t want to be offennnnnnnnasive.

As to the Good News Bible: John 2:4 “Woman, you must not tell me what to do”
Yeah, that’s accurate.

Has everyone read Rev. Henry Graham’s “Where We Got The Bible”?
Excellent in explaining the difficulties in transmitting the scriptures mechanically - and why Jesus established a Church to rule.

Where We Got the Bible... Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry Grey Graham | Goodreads

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is the verse in the Good News Bible, a translation that I have recently come to hold in high esteem:

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those with whom he is pleased!”

“Those” instead of “men” is obviously a concession to the inclusive languagists, but it sounds okay to my ear. But what about “with whom he is pleased”? Is that an accurate translation of either eudokia or eudokias?

As for the latter question, I wouldn’t have the slightest idea. I can only recognize certain Greek words (or guess at them) due to their roots, as well as random theological terms I’ve come across in five decades of reading. I never formally studied either Latin or Greek. Bad mistake. Should have taken at least two years of Latin and at least a year of Greek. Not one second you spend in classical studies will ever be wasted, never mind what the “college as job training” people will tell you. If your circumstances allow it, take an extra year, to give yourself enough time for such enrichment. That’s what I did. Get your basic 100 and 200 credits at a cheap community college. I did that too. Unless your destination is Harvard, Yale, or some such, it’s the same information. Possibly even the same books. I approached my studies at the humble little community college I went to, as though it were Harvard or Yale. It’s all I could afford. You get out what you put in.

But I digress. This is an honest, good-faith disagreement between Textus Receptus/KJV et al adherents, and those who adhere to the “men of good will” school of thought. Again, I’m just relieved to see it’s not the fruit of some modernistic, sentimentalist desire to include all men (or all people, if you prefer) in our wishes of peace. Personally, I’m content to wish everyone peace, whether they have “good will” or not. I hate no man, and I am at peace with everyone. Took me decades to get there. (And in all honesty, to this day I have a hard time “letting go” of certain past injuries where justice or even reconciliation is impossible — some of my malefactors are dead. But I try. You pick up the obituaries all the time. Not everyone lives to a ripe old age.)

Jesus never said “Who do people say I am?” Saint Paul never wrote “Brothers and sisters …” We hear both incessantly.

For one thing, they didn’t speak English. I’d be interested to see how Aramaic and Greek treat such things.

As to the Good News Bible: John 2:4 “Woman, you must not tell me what to do”

Though “woman” usually sounds rough to modern English-speaking ears, the original Aramaic may have been a term more akin to “ma’am”. I honestly don’t know. Aramaic isn’t a blade in my Swiss Army knife of languages either. Some stricter, old-school parents still have their children to refer to them as “ma’am” and “sir”. Wouldn’t be my thing, but everyone is different.

 

[po18guy]

Though “woman” usually sounds rough to modern English-speaking ears, the original Aramaic may have been a term more akin to “ma’am”. I honestly don’t know. Aramaic isn’t a blade in my Swiss Army knife of languages either. Some stricter, old-school parents still have their children to refer to them as “ma’am” and “sir”. Wouldn’t be my thing, but everyone is different.

My point being the apparent rebuke in the translation. It is utterly unique in that regard.

For an easy read when one is not energetic enough to entertain the rarified lyricism of the great masters, I find portions of the Catholic Living Bible (mostly the Deuterocanon, done by Our Sunday Visitor) to be rather well done. And the Catholic New Living Translation is not bad, but a few translation points stick in the craw. The verse at hand reads:

“Glory to God in highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those
with whom God is pleased”

A little gender neutrality in personal pronouns there.

 

[BartholomewB]

There’s an interesting website called the Center for New Testament Restoration: Center for New Testament Restoration

It seems to be a one-man outfit, run by Alan Bunning of Purdue University, Lafayette, IN. I haven’t found a way to link directly to this verse, but it only takes a moment to click on the dropdown menu. It’ll show you that most of the manuscripts have eudokias with an -s, while just three have eudokia. The key to the mystery may be the two lines at the top, where the word is missing altogether.

 

[Elf01]

Saint Paul never wrote “Brothers and sisters …” We hear both incessantly. Wouldn’t want to be offennnnnnnnasive.

Did the group he was writing to include men and women?

 

[BartholomewB]

There were a few posts in Liturgy & Sacraments, not long ago, about lectors who change it to “Sisters and brothers” and then look around the congregation with a self-satisfied smirk.

 

[Elf01]

There were a few posts in Liturgy & Sacraments, not long ago, about lectors who change it to “Sisters and brothers” and then look around the congregation with a self-satisfied smirk.

True, but I think this is about the translation, not about a lector changing the words.

 

[BartholomewB]

There’s no difficulty about the translation. In Greek, as in other languages that inflect for gender, the masculine plural form is used for groups that include both males and females. Only an all-female group would get the feminine plural. For example, in the road to Emmaus episode in Luke 24, there’s no way to tell whether the two disciples were two men or a man and a woman. All we know from the Greek text is that they weren’t both women.

 

[Elf01]

There’s no difficulty about the translation. In Greek, as in other languages that inflect for gender, the masculine plural form is used for groups that include both males and females. Only an all-female group would get the feminine plural.

Which is why I asked in the case of Pauls letters, was he addressing both men and women?

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, but I would see that as a question of history, not so much as a question of translation. The only evidence I’m aware of is the name Prisca or Priscilla, Aquila’s wife. So the answer, as I see it — subject to confirmation that it is historically factual — would be “brothers and sisters” is correct, since in English the word “brothers” doesn’t include sisters.

[Edited to add]
There’s also a Julia mentioned in Romans 16, and also, in the same chapter, an ambiguous reference to someone called either Junia (a woman’s name) or Junias (a man’s name). There may be others that I can’t think of offhand.

 

[Elf01]

Yes, but I would see that as a question of history, not so much as a question of translation. The only evidence I’m aware of is the name Prisca or Priscilla, Aquila’s wife. So the answer, as I see it — subject to confirmation that it is historically factual — would be “brothers and sisters” is correct, since in English the word “brothers” doesn’t include sisters.

The point I was leading up to.

 

[Gorgias]

But what about “with whom he is pleased”? Is that an accurate translation of either eudokia or eudokias?

Well, it’s εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας, right?

So:
εἰρήνη (peace - nom fem sg)
ἐν (in / among – prep)
ἀνθρώποις (humans / men – dat masc pl)
εὐδοκίας (goodwill / God’s good pleasure – gen fem sg)

So, “men of God’s good pleasure” would seem to give rise to the “with whom He is pleased” translation, and it all boils down to whether we see this as God’s εὐδοκία or people’s, right?

“[God’s] goodwill” feels a little strained to me, but I can see where they got it from.

Jesus never said “Who do people say I am?” Saint Paul never wrote “Brothers and sisters …” We hear both incessantly.

Except that… Jesus did, and so did St Paul. If you want to translate “anthropos” as meaning “male person”, then you’re missing the point. So, who cares if we translate a word that means ‘person’ as “person”? Or one that means ‘a group of siblings’ as “brothers and sisters”?

You’re trying to argue for the Greek by virtue of English grammar… and it just doesn’t work.

As to the Good News Bible: John 2:4 “Woman, you must not tell me what to do”
Yeah, that’s accurate.

Ahh… except, in this case, Jesus didn’t use the word for ‘person’, he used the word for ‘female human’ – γύναι. The corresponding word for ‘male human’ would be ἀνήρ, not ἄνθρωπος.

I’d be interested to see how Aramaic and Greek treat such things.

In Koine Greek, the masculine plural of “adelphos” could refer either to a group of all men, or a group of men and women. Hence, “brothers and sisters” isn’t an unreasonable translation, although it’s not the traditional one.

The word ‘anthropos’ doesn’t necessarily men “biological male”, although ‘aner’ does (and ‘gune’ means “biological woman”).

(Edited to add: I see that @BartholomewB also mentions this feature.)