03-31-2021, 12:06 PM
Judas’ Betrayal
Let us now consider a brief passage from the arrest of Jesus. When Judas and the crowd came to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asked Judas a question, as recorded in Matthew 26:50. In the Catholic Revised Standard Version it reads, “Friend, why are you here?” (CRSV, ’66). In the New King James Version it goes, “Friend, why have you come?” (NKJV, ’85).
But in the Vulgate it is simply: “Amice (Friend), ad (to) quid (what) venisti (have you come)?” In Greek it reads, “ ‘Hetaire (Companion, Friend), ’eph’ (to) hò (what) párei (are you come)?” ’Eph is a form of ’epì, used here with the accusative case (a direct object); ’epì with the accusative has a dual meaning. It can mean “to a place or state” (“To what have you come?”), or “for a pur- 50 Which Bible Should You Read? pose” (“What have you come for?”). Both the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims Bible preserve this subtle ambiguity of the Greek, leaving the symbolic meaning also still present—as one can well imagine the infinite intelligence of Our Lord instilling into this question. But the other new Catholic translations and the NIV, NRSV and NASV make this verse into an imperative sentence.
“Friend, do what you are here for!” (NAB, ’70).
“Friend, do what you have come for. (NAB, ’86).
“My Friend, do what you are here for.” (JB, ’66).
“Friend, do what you came for.” (NIV, ’78).
“Friend, do what you are here to do.” (NRSV, ’89).
“Friend, do what you have come for.” (NASV, ’77).
“Friend, do what you are here to do.” (NEB, ’76).
Not a one of these “translations” is rendering what Scripture says! They are all rewording this verse into either a prosaic question or an imperative sentence Judas’ Betrayal 51 that commands Judas to do what he came for. One has to ask, “Where did they get these contrivances?” They are not in the Latin Vulgate, and they are definitely not in the Greek “original.” We are not considering here Hebrew or Chaldaic, over which some arcane argument might be introduced, but Greek, a language commonly taught in most universities.
But now listen to the Douay-Rheims Bible: “Friend, whereto art thou come?” (DRB). This is a two-pronged question, just as in the Greek and Latin: “Why are you here?” and “To what a state have you come?” Considered in the second sense, what is this question if not a moral rebuke leveled at Judas, which says in effect, “Friend, to what a state have you fallen to betray Me, the Son of Man, your God and Redeemer?” “How low have you descended to be able to do this to your God?”
But Our Lord can also ask the very same question of anyone who commits a sin and thereby betrays Him. Therefore, this is a question asked, not just of Judas, but of us all! To what a state, indeed, do we descend to betray the Son of God by our sins, by our moral rebellion? A person can pause here to meditate long and fruitfully on these five simple words from the Douay-Rheims. But in all the other versions, they become only part of a narrative—nothing to contemplate, nothing over which to call ourselves to task. No, just . . . on with the story, for more and more bland narrative!
Whereas, in the Douay-Rheims Bible, Our Lord utters a short, verbal stab that goes right to the heart of every sinner— something that can be said to him about every sin he commits—mortal or venial! For all sins are a betrayal of Christ, of His Person, of His Law, of His love. Every sin is a lie; it is also an idol—a false god—that we sinners place before the one, true God. In sum, it is a rejection and a betrayal of Him—plus that which caused His bitter agony and death. All this meaning from five simple words of Scripture . . . but Scripture faithfully translated!
“Peace on Earth . . .”
One of the most interesting examples to demonstrate how the modern translators often differ from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible occurs in Luke 2:14, where the Angels at the birth of Jesus are singing in their praise:
“Glory to God in the highest; and on earth, peace to men of good will.” (DRB).
The ways this verse is translated in the various modern versions contain two examples of typical problems the translators face when they depart from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible. The first of these problems is exemplified by the translation of this verse in the original King James Version of 1611, which translation is then repeated by the NKJV, seemingly because this verse the way the KJV rendered it is so famous. In both the KJV and NKJV it reads:
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (KJV and NKJV, emphasis added).
This translation conveys a fundamentally different concept from that of the DRB and Latin Vulgate. The KJV and NKJV imply that there is now “an open divine accord and peace with mankind,” whereas the DRB, reflecting the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, says, “peace to men of good will”—with the implication of only “to men of good will.”
Which is right? How did the King James Commission arrive at this translation? (And is that sufficient reason for the NKJV to retain it?) For the NKJV is the only version that does retain this translation among the 10 versions compared here. (St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate obviously does not agree with this translation either.)
To answer these two questions, let us first consider the Latin Vulgate translation and then the edition of the “original” Greek available to us today:
In Latin, the words are verbatim the same as in the DRB: “Gloria (Glory) in (in) altissimis (the highest) Deo (to God), et (and) in (on) terra (earth) pax (peace) hominibus (to men) bonae (of good) voluntatis (will).” And in the Greek, they are again word for word the same: “Dóxa (Glory) ’en (in) hupsístois (the highest) Theó (to God) kaì (and) èpì (on) gès (earth) èiréne (peace) èn (to) ànthrópois (men) eùdokías (of good will).” (Cf. Liddell-Scott, eùdokía, p. 324.)
The difference in translation in the KJV and NKJV from the DRB and all other modern translations cited here, plus in the Latin Vulgate, comes down to the “case” of the Greek word eùdokías, which is a possessive (i.e., genitive) case form, as given here. But some Greek texts have eùdokías as eùdokía, which is a nominative case form, i.e., the case of the subject of a sentence. The KJV and NKJV are based on this other Greek version. Therefore, the KJV and NKJV are considering eùdokía either an appositive of the subject of the sentence (i.e., a repeat), or the second half of a compound subject: “. . . peace, good will toward men.” The DRB translates eùdokías as “of good will,” which is how St. Jerome translates it (bonae voluntatis).
However, one should note well that both the KJV and NKJV translate eu’dokías (i.e., eu’ dokía to them) as “good will.” This agrees with the DRB, but it is in contradistinction to all the other modern translations compared here, other than the DRB. (This is an important point which we shall discuss later in this section.)
This discrepancy in the Greek text is an example of the reason the Douay-Rheims Bible translators adopted a policy of trusting St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate over the Greek versions when there occurs a difference in the ancient texts, because in their words, the Vulgate is “more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant” and “the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruptions.” (Preface to the Douay Old Testament). (This greater fidelity in the Vulgate was due in large part to there being far more copies made of the Vulgate than of the Greek and Hebrew bibles.)
Here, it seems to this writer, we need to defer to St. Jerome and to trust in God’s providence that the Greek text he translated from was correct and that he translated it correctly. From numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments, for example, one can clearly see that God distinguishes between the “just” (the good, those “in the state of sanctifying grace”) and the “unjust” (mortal sinners) in His relationship to human beings. He does not hold out open “good will” to mortal sinners, but dire warnings (and even threatened punishments) that they should change their ways. From this fact alone—i.e., the disagreement between the message of “peace, good will to men” (KJV, NKJV) and the warnings to and strictures against sinners in the rest of the Bible—it would seem far wiser to accept St. Jerome (and his wording of “peace to men of good will”), for he was Greek-speaking from birth, was closer than we to the writing of the New Testament by (now) some 1,600 years, and had many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant. The point is not really hard; it comes down to this: trusting St. Jerome and the Holy Spirit—St. Jerome because he was Greek-speaking, a genius, a Saint (he translated on his knees in prayer and humility and was obviously singled out by God to do what he did) and the Holy Spirit because He allowed THIS translation to stand from 409 to 1611, before it was challenged by the Protestants with the KJV. One has to ask himself: “Were all those Catholic centuries lost in the darkness of ignorance about this Scripture passage until enlightened by the Protestants?” Or, did the Catholic Church have it right all along?
Now let us consider the second problem: what the other versions do with eùdokías (“of good will”) in this verse.
Every other version in English cited here has something quite different from “of good will” that we find in the Douay-Rheims, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek “original”—and even from the KJV and NKJV. Here are these modern translations:
“Glory to God in high heaven, peace on earth to those on whom his favor rests.” (NAB, ’70, emphasis added). “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (NAB, ’86, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace to men who enjoy his favour.” (JB, ’66, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased.” (CRSV, ’66 and NASV, ’77, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (NRSV, ’89, emphasis added). “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” (NIV, ’78, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in highest heaven, and on earth his peace for men on whom his favor rests.” (NEB, ’76, emphasis added).
What leads to the wide disparity among translations of this passage between the DRB on the one hand and all these others is that the Greek noun e[font="Segoe UI Symbol", sans-serif]ù[/font]dokía(s) is just plain hard to translate. The Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell-Scott gives two meanings for eùdokía: “satisfaction” or “approval.” However, neither one of these fits the context of the sentence, nor do they agree with the Latin Vulgate, the Douay- Rheims Bible, or even the King James Versions. To translate the verse “. . . peace to men of satisfaction” or “. . . peace to men of approval” would be stupid, so the modern translators did not do this. It is the opinion of this writer that they were stumped, that the correct English translation for the word as used in this passage simply is not found in today’s Greek-English lexicons, and therefore, as an intelligent way out of their problem, they would seem to have gone to those famous passages in the New Testament where God the Father, at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17, and Matt. 17:5, DRB), plus other similar passages, and built up a meaning out of the verb form of eùdokías— which they knew the meaning of.
The Greek form of the verb for “am well pleased” is eùdókesa, which is very similar in form to the noun eùdokía. Thus, in the opinion of this writer, they improvised 60 Which Bible Should You Read? translations such as “. . . on whom his favor rests” (NAB, ’70 and ’86, NIV, ’78 and NEB ’76), “. . . who enjoy his favor” (JB, ’66), “. . . with whom he is pleased” (CRSV and NASV), and “. . . among those whom he favors” (NRSV, ’89).
One has to admit that this is very ingenious of the translators because they can thereby render an approximate meaning that fits the context of the sentence, the general meaning of the Vulgate and the traditional English of the DRB. There is only one problem, however: This is not what the Bible says—not in the Greek text nor in the Vulgate! These modern versions are putting words into the mouth of St. Matthew—and in turn, of Almighty God, who inspired the Scriptures—words that are just not there and in turn that are changing the meaning of the verse. (Notice, e.g., that “peace on earth” is entirely gone from the JB.)
What does the Greek say? “. . . kaì (and) épi (on) gès (earth) èiréne (peace) èn (to) anthrópois (men) eùdokías (‘of good’ something or other)” . . . “will,” according to St. Jerome, but definitely not “satisfaction” or “approval,” as Liddell-Scott gives the translation). We know that eùdokías is the possessive form of the noun and that the Greek prefix eùmeans “good” or “well.” (We still use this prefix in English, as in “eulogy,” “eugenics,” “euphemism,” etc.) Therefore we know two of the three components of eùdokías, namely, “of ” and “good.” It comes down to this, then: what does the -dokías part mean?
The answer is really not very hard: We just need to accept St. Jerome’s rendering—“ of good will.” The KJV did—at least the “good will” part. What is the problem with accepting St. Jerome? It is the opinion of this writer that today’s Greek lexicons and dictionaries have lost the “good will” meaning of eùdokía; probably it was a 4th or 5th meaning of the noun, or maybe a 10th or 12th, and its meaning has been lost to the scholars who have had to assemble their mighty, brilliant lexicons from the many usages of the words found in all of ancient literature. But did they capture for posterity all the meanings in all the passages? This would seem hardly likely! Only an army of scholars in our own time, using a capacious computer system, could even approach this objective . . . and that only after many years of work.
The reader will perhaps forebear a homely, first-hand example to illustrate the point: Recently in this writer’s office, he used a common word no one had ever heard used that way. The unabridged Webster’s Dictionary gave this usage as the 13th meaning of the word. Sixteen hundred years from now, will scholars still know this 13th meaning of that word? Probably not! The correct meaning of eùdokías is probably in that same situation vis-a-vis the modern translators. But if it is a bona fide 4th or 6th or 8th or 10th meaning of the word, do you suppose the Greek St. Jerome knew it? The safer bet is that he did. Just look at what he did with it: “of good will” is simple, straight-forward and intelligible; also, it fits—not just linguistically, but with the entire theology of the Bible! Plus, it has lasted 16 centuries really unchallenged, even by the original KJV. (The King James Commission also called it “good will.”) Should not modern scholars then also accept it today—trusting that in the mind of that ancient Greek Saint the precise meaning of eùdokías was surely and safely stored away, so that, in God’s providence, he could give it to us?
Then too, let us consider that the intellectuals of St. Jerome’s day throughout Roman Empire all knew Greek and Latin, and they all accepted his translation. If the whole Greco-Roman intellectual world accepted it, why do modern translators have a problem with it? What is afoot here? Are the modern translators uncircumspect as to ask us to accept their contrived translation— because their lexicons do not translate eùdokías as “of good will” (bonae voluntatis)—when the whole Greek-and- Latin-speaking ancient world did accept it? Which side has the greater probability for accuracy? If a person’s life depended on the choice, there is not a doubt which way he would decide. (In this writer’s experience, learned people can often get bollixed up by not carefully thinking through all the implications of what they are doing or writing when it flies in the face of tradition.) The Latin Vulgate definitely does not say, “peace, good will toward men,” as the KJV and NKJV version would have it, implying thereby an equal good will to “all men.” St. Paul, before his conversion, was truly a man on whom God’s favor rested, but can we believe that, while he was persecuting the Church, God would wish him “peace,” rather than a very disturbed conscience, until such time as he would 64 Which Bible Should You Read? become “of good will”? (Christ knocked him off his horse and temporarily blinded him to wake him up!) There is truly a difference between “God’s favor” on the one hand and “good will” in one’s heart on the other. Are we to imagine that the Angels, with their pure, untrammeled intellects, did not see the truth in such an elementary matter?
And how the NAB can go so far as not to translate ánthropois as “men” displays a freedom with the text that simply fails to respect what the Bible says. Every adult can see that our word “anthropology,” “the study of man,” comes etymologically from the Greek word anthropos, “man.” Granted the translators of the NAB may want to use terms “inclusive” of men and women, yet clearly that is not what Scripture says.
A translation that takes such liberties is truly only an approximation of what the Bible actually says. And yet it is the NAB that outsells all other Catholic Bibles combined, because the clergy and teachers promote it. Also, it is the version usually used in the new Catholic liturgy in English in the U.S. It is the version most Catholic school children are sent off to procure. But what if a person were to attempt to do St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises using the New American Bible; would he ever arrive at a penetration of what the Bible really means, or would he derive only some vague approximation of the meaning—if even that?
Are we to discard the time-honored use of “man” and “men” to refer in a generic sense to all mankind, now that the fad of modern feminism has been foisted on the world—as if Jesus Christ did not truly liberate women 2000 years ago and raise them to a dignity in many ways superior to man’s . . . from which current women’s liberation has only dragged them down?
Let us now consider a brief passage from the arrest of Jesus. When Judas and the crowd came to apprehend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asked Judas a question, as recorded in Matthew 26:50. In the Catholic Revised Standard Version it reads, “Friend, why are you here?” (CRSV, ’66). In the New King James Version it goes, “Friend, why have you come?” (NKJV, ’85).
But in the Vulgate it is simply: “Amice (Friend), ad (to) quid (what) venisti (have you come)?” In Greek it reads, “ ‘Hetaire (Companion, Friend), ’eph’ (to) hò (what) párei (are you come)?” ’Eph is a form of ’epì, used here with the accusative case (a direct object); ’epì with the accusative has a dual meaning. It can mean “to a place or state” (“To what have you come?”), or “for a pur- 50 Which Bible Should You Read? pose” (“What have you come for?”). Both the Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims Bible preserve this subtle ambiguity of the Greek, leaving the symbolic meaning also still present—as one can well imagine the infinite intelligence of Our Lord instilling into this question. But the other new Catholic translations and the NIV, NRSV and NASV make this verse into an imperative sentence.
“Friend, do what you are here for!” (NAB, ’70).
“Friend, do what you have come for. (NAB, ’86).
“My Friend, do what you are here for.” (JB, ’66).
“Friend, do what you came for.” (NIV, ’78).
“Friend, do what you are here to do.” (NRSV, ’89).
“Friend, do what you have come for.” (NASV, ’77).
“Friend, do what you are here to do.” (NEB, ’76).
Not a one of these “translations” is rendering what Scripture says! They are all rewording this verse into either a prosaic question or an imperative sentence Judas’ Betrayal 51 that commands Judas to do what he came for. One has to ask, “Where did they get these contrivances?” They are not in the Latin Vulgate, and they are definitely not in the Greek “original.” We are not considering here Hebrew or Chaldaic, over which some arcane argument might be introduced, but Greek, a language commonly taught in most universities.
But now listen to the Douay-Rheims Bible: “Friend, whereto art thou come?” (DRB). This is a two-pronged question, just as in the Greek and Latin: “Why are you here?” and “To what a state have you come?” Considered in the second sense, what is this question if not a moral rebuke leveled at Judas, which says in effect, “Friend, to what a state have you fallen to betray Me, the Son of Man, your God and Redeemer?” “How low have you descended to be able to do this to your God?”
But Our Lord can also ask the very same question of anyone who commits a sin and thereby betrays Him. Therefore, this is a question asked, not just of Judas, but of us all! To what a state, indeed, do we descend to betray the Son of God by our sins, by our moral rebellion? A person can pause here to meditate long and fruitfully on these five simple words from the Douay-Rheims. But in all the other versions, they become only part of a narrative—nothing to contemplate, nothing over which to call ourselves to task. No, just . . . on with the story, for more and more bland narrative!
Whereas, in the Douay-Rheims Bible, Our Lord utters a short, verbal stab that goes right to the heart of every sinner— something that can be said to him about every sin he commits—mortal or venial! For all sins are a betrayal of Christ, of His Person, of His Law, of His love. Every sin is a lie; it is also an idol—a false god—that we sinners place before the one, true God. In sum, it is a rejection and a betrayal of Him—plus that which caused His bitter agony and death. All this meaning from five simple words of Scripture . . . but Scripture faithfully translated!
“Peace on Earth . . .”
One of the most interesting examples to demonstrate how the modern translators often differ from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible occurs in Luke 2:14, where the Angels at the birth of Jesus are singing in their praise:
“Glory to God in the highest; and on earth, peace to men of good will.” (DRB).
The ways this verse is translated in the various modern versions contain two examples of typical problems the translators face when they depart from St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible. The first of these problems is exemplified by the translation of this verse in the original King James Version of 1611, which translation is then repeated by the NKJV, seemingly because this verse the way the KJV rendered it is so famous. In both the KJV and NKJV it reads:
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” (KJV and NKJV, emphasis added).
This translation conveys a fundamentally different concept from that of the DRB and Latin Vulgate. The KJV and NKJV imply that there is now “an open divine accord and peace with mankind,” whereas the DRB, reflecting the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, says, “peace to men of good will”—with the implication of only “to men of good will.”
Which is right? How did the King James Commission arrive at this translation? (And is that sufficient reason for the NKJV to retain it?) For the NKJV is the only version that does retain this translation among the 10 versions compared here. (St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate obviously does not agree with this translation either.)
To answer these two questions, let us first consider the Latin Vulgate translation and then the edition of the “original” Greek available to us today:
In Latin, the words are verbatim the same as in the DRB: “Gloria (Glory) in (in) altissimis (the highest) Deo (to God), et (and) in (on) terra (earth) pax (peace) hominibus (to men) bonae (of good) voluntatis (will).” And in the Greek, they are again word for word the same: “Dóxa (Glory) ’en (in) hupsístois (the highest) Theó (to God) kaì (and) èpì (on) gès (earth) èiréne (peace) èn (to) ànthrópois (men) eùdokías (of good will).” (Cf. Liddell-Scott, eùdokía, p. 324.)
The difference in translation in the KJV and NKJV from the DRB and all other modern translations cited here, plus in the Latin Vulgate, comes down to the “case” of the Greek word eùdokías, which is a possessive (i.e., genitive) case form, as given here. But some Greek texts have eùdokías as eùdokía, which is a nominative case form, i.e., the case of the subject of a sentence. The KJV and NKJV are based on this other Greek version. Therefore, the KJV and NKJV are considering eùdokía either an appositive of the subject of the sentence (i.e., a repeat), or the second half of a compound subject: “. . . peace, good will toward men.” The DRB translates eùdokías as “of good will,” which is how St. Jerome translates it (bonae voluntatis).
However, one should note well that both the KJV and NKJV translate eu’dokías (i.e., eu’ dokía to them) as “good will.” This agrees with the DRB, but it is in contradistinction to all the other modern translations compared here, other than the DRB. (This is an important point which we shall discuss later in this section.)
This discrepancy in the Greek text is an example of the reason the Douay-Rheims Bible translators adopted a policy of trusting St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate over the Greek versions when there occurs a difference in the ancient texts, because in their words, the Vulgate is “more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extant” and “the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruptions.” (Preface to the Douay Old Testament). (This greater fidelity in the Vulgate was due in large part to there being far more copies made of the Vulgate than of the Greek and Hebrew bibles.)
Here, it seems to this writer, we need to defer to St. Jerome and to trust in God’s providence that the Greek text he translated from was correct and that he translated it correctly. From numerous passages in both the Old and New Testaments, for example, one can clearly see that God distinguishes between the “just” (the good, those “in the state of sanctifying grace”) and the “unjust” (mortal sinners) in His relationship to human beings. He does not hold out open “good will” to mortal sinners, but dire warnings (and even threatened punishments) that they should change their ways. From this fact alone—i.e., the disagreement between the message of “peace, good will to men” (KJV, NKJV) and the warnings to and strictures against sinners in the rest of the Bible—it would seem far wiser to accept St. Jerome (and his wording of “peace to men of good will”), for he was Greek-speaking from birth, was closer than we to the writing of the New Testament by (now) some 1,600 years, and had many manuscripts to work from that are no longer extant. The point is not really hard; it comes down to this: trusting St. Jerome and the Holy Spirit—St. Jerome because he was Greek-speaking, a genius, a Saint (he translated on his knees in prayer and humility and was obviously singled out by God to do what he did) and the Holy Spirit because He allowed THIS translation to stand from 409 to 1611, before it was challenged by the Protestants with the KJV. One has to ask himself: “Were all those Catholic centuries lost in the darkness of ignorance about this Scripture passage until enlightened by the Protestants?” Or, did the Catholic Church have it right all along?
Now let us consider the second problem: what the other versions do with eùdokías (“of good will”) in this verse.
Every other version in English cited here has something quite different from “of good will” that we find in the Douay-Rheims, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek “original”—and even from the KJV and NKJV. Here are these modern translations:
“Glory to God in high heaven, peace on earth to those on whom his favor rests.” (NAB, ’70, emphasis added). “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (NAB, ’86, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace to men who enjoy his favour.” (JB, ’66, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased.” (CRSV, ’66 and NASV, ’77, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” (NRSV, ’89, emphasis added). “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.” (NIV, ’78, emphasis added).
“Glory to God in highest heaven, and on earth his peace for men on whom his favor rests.” (NEB, ’76, emphasis added).
What leads to the wide disparity among translations of this passage between the DRB on the one hand and all these others is that the Greek noun e[font="Segoe UI Symbol", sans-serif]ù[/font]dokía(s) is just plain hard to translate. The Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell-Scott gives two meanings for eùdokía: “satisfaction” or “approval.” However, neither one of these fits the context of the sentence, nor do they agree with the Latin Vulgate, the Douay- Rheims Bible, or even the King James Versions. To translate the verse “. . . peace to men of satisfaction” or “. . . peace to men of approval” would be stupid, so the modern translators did not do this. It is the opinion of this writer that they were stumped, that the correct English translation for the word as used in this passage simply is not found in today’s Greek-English lexicons, and therefore, as an intelligent way out of their problem, they would seem to have gone to those famous passages in the New Testament where God the Father, at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17, and Matt. 17:5, DRB), plus other similar passages, and built up a meaning out of the verb form of eùdokías— which they knew the meaning of.
The Greek form of the verb for “am well pleased” is eùdókesa, which is very similar in form to the noun eùdokía. Thus, in the opinion of this writer, they improvised 60 Which Bible Should You Read? translations such as “. . . on whom his favor rests” (NAB, ’70 and ’86, NIV, ’78 and NEB ’76), “. . . who enjoy his favor” (JB, ’66), “. . . with whom he is pleased” (CRSV and NASV), and “. . . among those whom he favors” (NRSV, ’89).
One has to admit that this is very ingenious of the translators because they can thereby render an approximate meaning that fits the context of the sentence, the general meaning of the Vulgate and the traditional English of the DRB. There is only one problem, however: This is not what the Bible says—not in the Greek text nor in the Vulgate! These modern versions are putting words into the mouth of St. Matthew—and in turn, of Almighty God, who inspired the Scriptures—words that are just not there and in turn that are changing the meaning of the verse. (Notice, e.g., that “peace on earth” is entirely gone from the JB.)
What does the Greek say? “. . . kaì (and) épi (on) gès (earth) èiréne (peace) èn (to) anthrópois (men) eùdokías (‘of good’ something or other)” . . . “will,” according to St. Jerome, but definitely not “satisfaction” or “approval,” as Liddell-Scott gives the translation). We know that eùdokías is the possessive form of the noun and that the Greek prefix eùmeans “good” or “well.” (We still use this prefix in English, as in “eulogy,” “eugenics,” “euphemism,” etc.) Therefore we know two of the three components of eùdokías, namely, “of ” and “good.” It comes down to this, then: what does the -dokías part mean?
The answer is really not very hard: We just need to accept St. Jerome’s rendering—“ of good will.” The KJV did—at least the “good will” part. What is the problem with accepting St. Jerome? It is the opinion of this writer that today’s Greek lexicons and dictionaries have lost the “good will” meaning of eùdokía; probably it was a 4th or 5th meaning of the noun, or maybe a 10th or 12th, and its meaning has been lost to the scholars who have had to assemble their mighty, brilliant lexicons from the many usages of the words found in all of ancient literature. But did they capture for posterity all the meanings in all the passages? This would seem hardly likely! Only an army of scholars in our own time, using a capacious computer system, could even approach this objective . . . and that only after many years of work.
The reader will perhaps forebear a homely, first-hand example to illustrate the point: Recently in this writer’s office, he used a common word no one had ever heard used that way. The unabridged Webster’s Dictionary gave this usage as the 13th meaning of the word. Sixteen hundred years from now, will scholars still know this 13th meaning of that word? Probably not! The correct meaning of eùdokías is probably in that same situation vis-a-vis the modern translators. But if it is a bona fide 4th or 6th or 8th or 10th meaning of the word, do you suppose the Greek St. Jerome knew it? The safer bet is that he did. Just look at what he did with it: “of good will” is simple, straight-forward and intelligible; also, it fits—not just linguistically, but with the entire theology of the Bible! Plus, it has lasted 16 centuries really unchallenged, even by the original KJV. (The King James Commission also called it “good will.”) Should not modern scholars then also accept it today—trusting that in the mind of that ancient Greek Saint the precise meaning of eùdokías was surely and safely stored away, so that, in God’s providence, he could give it to us?
Then too, let us consider that the intellectuals of St. Jerome’s day throughout Roman Empire all knew Greek and Latin, and they all accepted his translation. If the whole Greco-Roman intellectual world accepted it, why do modern translators have a problem with it? What is afoot here? Are the modern translators uncircumspect as to ask us to accept their contrived translation— because their lexicons do not translate eùdokías as “of good will” (bonae voluntatis)—when the whole Greek-and- Latin-speaking ancient world did accept it? Which side has the greater probability for accuracy? If a person’s life depended on the choice, there is not a doubt which way he would decide. (In this writer’s experience, learned people can often get bollixed up by not carefully thinking through all the implications of what they are doing or writing when it flies in the face of tradition.) The Latin Vulgate definitely does not say, “peace, good will toward men,” as the KJV and NKJV version would have it, implying thereby an equal good will to “all men.” St. Paul, before his conversion, was truly a man on whom God’s favor rested, but can we believe that, while he was persecuting the Church, God would wish him “peace,” rather than a very disturbed conscience, until such time as he would 64 Which Bible Should You Read? become “of good will”? (Christ knocked him off his horse and temporarily blinded him to wake him up!) There is truly a difference between “God’s favor” on the one hand and “good will” in one’s heart on the other. Are we to imagine that the Angels, with their pure, untrammeled intellects, did not see the truth in such an elementary matter?
And how the NAB can go so far as not to translate ánthropois as “men” displays a freedom with the text that simply fails to respect what the Bible says. Every adult can see that our word “anthropology,” “the study of man,” comes etymologically from the Greek word anthropos, “man.” Granted the translators of the NAB may want to use terms “inclusive” of men and women, yet clearly that is not what Scripture says.
A translation that takes such liberties is truly only an approximation of what the Bible actually says. And yet it is the NAB that outsells all other Catholic Bibles combined, because the clergy and teachers promote it. Also, it is the version usually used in the new Catholic liturgy in English in the U.S. It is the version most Catholic school children are sent off to procure. But what if a person were to attempt to do St. Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises using the New American Bible; would he ever arrive at a penetration of what the Bible really means, or would he derive only some vague approximation of the meaning—if even that?
Are we to discard the time-honored use of “man” and “men” to refer in a generic sense to all mankind, now that the fad of modern feminism has been foisted on the world—as if Jesus Christ did not truly liberate women 2000 years ago and raise them to a dignity in many ways superior to man’s . . . from which current women’s liberation has only dragged them down?