GoedBericht.nl logo
English Blog

Transparency, Not Interpretation

25-08-2025 - Posted by Geert-Jan
Originally posted on September 10, 2001 – by Andre Piet

This article I (Andre Piet) wrote at the request of the Netherlands Bible Society (NBG) and it was printed in the September issue (2001) of Met Andere Woorden (In Other Words).

An Introduction

Seventy-five years ago in America the Concordant Literal New Testament appeared. Perhaps you have never heard of this translation. If so, this article will acquaint you with the principles of this—in many respects—unique project.

The man behind the Concordant Version was Adolph Ernst Knoch. Convinced of the inspiration of the “holy Scriptures,” he believed that the existing translation methods allowed too much room for the interpretations of the translators. Knoch thought it must be possible to present a far more transparent Bible translation. A Bible translation that is not so much beautiful and literarily polished, but that shows to the maximum what “is written” in the original text. One in which the personal thoughts of translators are excluded as much as possible. A Bible translation, therefore, that confronts the reader maximally with the facts of the original text and minimally with the opinions of the translator.

Concordant Translation Method

‘Concordant’ means ‘uniform,’ ‘corresponding.’ A concordant translation aims to be a one-to-one translation: one word in the original text rendered by one translation word. The principle in concordant translating is therefore: concordant where possible, but always consistent. The vocabulary of the original text must be preserved as much as possible in the translation.

Words derive their meaning from the way they are used. When one wants to understand a particular word in the Bible, one must consult a concordance on the original text and then examine where and how that word is used. The problem, however, is that the concordance on the original text usually brings to light the discordance of the Bible translation. Everyone familiar with Bible study knows this phenomenon. To give a random example (or perhaps an example of arbitrariness?): the Greek word MUTHOS (compare our word “myth”) occurs five times in the New Testament. In the NBG translation it is rendered three times as “fiction,” once as “fable,” and once as “(old wives’) tale.” That is discordant—contrary, by the way, to the Statenvertaling, which consistently translates it as “fables.”

Not only is one word from the original text rendered by various translation words, but those translation words in turn may be the rendering of different words from the original text. Thus, for example, the word AION is translated as “eternity” and also as “world.” Discordant, therefore. But the word “world” is not only used as a rendering of AION but also of KOSMOS. Thus arises a tangle of translation words that makes the study of biblical words extremely difficult.

Another example: the Greek word METANOEO is alternately translated as “to repent” and “to convert.” Not concordant, therefore. But “to convert” can also be the rendering of the Greek word EPISTREPHO. It is easy to see that when on occasion both Greek words occur in one sentence, as for instance in Acts 3:19, this must lead to forced constructions.

A concordant translation method recognizes the problem described above. It therefore takes as its starting point the vocabulary of the original text. This does not always produce text that is pleasing to the ear. But it does reveal much more of the truth of the original Scriptures. Is that not of far greater value? The method of the Concordant Version opens the eyes to many matters that in the usual discordant translations remain covered.

Eternity or Eon?

A striking surprise is provided by the concordant translation of the already mentioned Greek word AION. This word is rendered in the Dutch NBG translation as “world,” as “age,” but most often as “eternity.” The point here is not how AION can best be rendered concordantly, but rather what the result would be if this word were rendered concordantly. A consistent rendering of a downright poor translation word like “eternity” can already be quite “revealing”! In that case we would read about “the end of eternity” (Matthew 28:20), but also about “before the eternities” (1 Corinthians 2:7), “the past eternities,” and about “the consummation of the eternities” (Hebrews 9:26). The idea of endlessness that the word “eternity” carries would, by choosing a concordant rendering, automatically be corrected.

In Luke 1:33 (NBG) it is said that Christ will reign “unto eternity.” Paul, on the other hand, states in 1 Corinthians 15:25 that Christ’s reign explicitly has an “until.” How can that be? Well, in a concordant translation this contradiction does not exist. For here Luke 1:33 reads (entirely in line with the original text) that Christ reigns “unto the eons.” Not eternity, then, but eons.

The truth concerning the eons in the past, present, and future has been translated away in virtually all Bible versions. The reason and background of that phenomenon is not the subject here, but the fact itself is easy to demonstrate. Below follows a brief list of related expressions, with on the left the concordant, literal rendering and on the right (italicized) the NBG translation.

  • unto the eon (John 13:8) – unto eternity
  • unto the eons (Luke 1:33) – unto eternity
  • unto all the eons (Jude 25) – unto all eternities
  • unto the eons of the eons (Revelation 20:10) – unto all eternities
  • unto the eon of the eon (Hebrews 1:8) – unto all eternity
  • unto…the eon of the eons (Ephesians 3:21) – from eternity to eternity

What has remained in the NBG translation of the various expressions in which eons play a role? The word “all” has in some cases simply been added. Eons have (sometimes) been turned into “eternities,” a word that, strictly considered, is inherently contradictory. Various nuances in the original text have disappeared without any necessity. A concordant translation, on the other hand, brings them to light.

Other Examples

The value of consistency in translation words can hardly be overstated. For Bible study it is indispensable. How else could we make biblical (core) concepts our own? Let me give a few more examples to make this clear.

The plural of the Greek word DAIMON is in the NBG translation rendered at times with “gods,” sometimes with “devils,” but mostly with “evil spirits.” The latter is not really a translation; it is an interpretation. Not that the New Testament does not mention “evil spirits,” but then something entirely different stands there (pneumatōn ponērōn – Luke 8:2). By translating DAIMON as “evil spirit,” a moral element (“evil”) is added to a completely neutral Greek word. The times that DAIMON is translated with “devil” the matter is not clarified either, because “devil” is normally the translation word for DIABOLOS. In this way the Bible reader is deprived of the unmistakable distinction that the original text makes between different concepts. Discordant translations therefore block the way to acquiring a correct knowledge of biblical words.

The Greek word APOSTOLOS is almost always rendered as “apostle.” Of the approximately eighty times the word occurs there are three exceptions. Once it is translated as “envoy” (gezant) and twice as “delegate” (afgevaardigde). From a concordant point of view the translation “envoy” should not have been used, because that serves several times as the translation word for PRESBEUO.

The word “delegate” (afgevaardigde) perfectly conveys the meaning of APOSTOLOS. Why then is there no consistent choice for this word? Or (if you would find it unpalatable if the “apostles” of the New Testament were to disappear) why not render APOSTOLOS always with “apostle”? The discordant rendering of the NBG now gives the impression that a “delegate” is something different from an “apostle.” Thus the NBG confirms a common dogmatic view, but is it not inconsistent thereby in its approach to the source language?

Final example: the Greek word AGGELOS. Usually this word is rendered as “angel,” sometimes as “messenger,” and once as “courier.” The latter two translation words are chosen when the word AGGELOS refers to John the Baptist, to Paul, or to the spies in Jericho. This discordance is, of course, understandable, since it corresponds to the prevailing idea that angels simply are not human beings. But it contradicts the fact that the word AGGELOS in the original text is used for both heavenly beings and human beings.

In Conclusion

From the above examples it should be clear what value the concordant translation method can have for the lover of the words of God. Only uniform translation words enable the Bible reader to penetrate to the meaning of the words of the original text. A concordant translation confronts the Bible reader with the facts of the original text, so that the “layman”—not dependent on the interpretations of the “professional”—can draw his own conclusions.

Concordant and discordant translation words relate to each other as stars to planets. True stars have a fixed place in the firmament, whereas planets—according to their original meaning—are wandering stars. Certainly, planets give light. But at one time they appear in one constellation, at another time in another constellation. Planets wander in the heavens and therefore are difficult to locate. They offer no fixed point of reference.

In our dark world there is nothing that gives more light and essential orientation than the words of God. A consistent, reliable rendering of those words is of vital importance. From this conviction the concordant translation method derives its right to exist.

Scripture4all

Concordant Publishing Concern

Delen: