NIV vs. KJV on John 1:13

[Tim]

The scripture reading this past Lord's Day was from John 1. My ears perked up when they got to John 1:13 (NIV) because I heard a word I had not associated with that passage.

...children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (NIV)

...Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (KJV)

The Greek word there is andros, which is a form of aner which means man/male, rather than mankind (anthropos). The KJV, NKJV, MKJV, ASV, NASB, ESV, and Geneva all use "man". Does this alternative translation change the sense of the reading?

I am a beginner at translation and exegesis. Perhaps this is a good place to learn something.

Would anyone care to walk me through this?

 

[Davidius]

That's interesting. I never noticed it. ἄνηρ can mean "man" or, in specific contexts, "husband." Many languages do this, i.e. simply use the words for man and woman to mean husband and wife. I have no idea why the NIV translates it here as husband, though.

Good question!

 

[Tim]

That's interesting. I never noticed it. ἄνηρ can mean "man" or, in specific contexts, "husband." Many languages do this, i.e. simply use the words for man and woman to mean husband and wife. I have no idea why the NIV translates it here as husband, though.

Good question!

How did you get the Greek text/font to post here? Did you just copy and paste from one of your computer Greek texts?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:00:54 EST-----

ανδρος

Oh, it is that simple!

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:02:23 EST-----

אדם

And here is "man" or "Adam" in Hebrew!

 

[Davidius]

That's interesting. I never noticed it. ἄνηρ can mean "man" or, in specific contexts, "husband." Many languages do this, i.e. simply use the words for man and woman to mean husband and wife. I have no idea why the NIV translates it here as husband, though.

Good question!

How did you get the Greek text/font to post here? Did you just copy and paste from one of your computer Greek texts?

I use TypeGreek. You type with your English keyboard and the symbols are transliterated into Greek automatically. Most of the letters correspond to what you would think they'd be on the English keyboard (e.g. m = μ, n = ν, g = γ), but there are obviously a few exceptions. Click on the "Alphabet Key" link on the bottom right for help with those, as well as instructions about accents and breathing marks.

 

[Tim]

That's a really cool link. Thanks. It comes out so easily and fluidly. You just have to remember what are the English letters for the "double" Greek letters like theta/θ.

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:09:20 EST-----

Which I need to use for my own name,

τιμοθεος

 

[TsonMariytho]

That's interesting. I never noticed it. ἄνηρ can mean "man" or, in specific contexts, "husband." Many languages do this, i.e. simply use the words for man and woman to mean husband and wife. I have no idea why the NIV translates it here as husband, though.

Good question!

How did you get the Greek text/font to post here? Did you just copy and paste from one of your computer Greek texts?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:00:54 EST-----

ανδρος

Oh, it is that simple!

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 09:02:23 EST-----

אדם

And here is "man" or "Adam" in Hebrew!

I would suggest אִישׁ as a better parallel of ανδρος for "man" in the sense of "male person / husband / dude whose socks you don't want to smell after he exercises".

Whereas אָדָם is a decent parallel to ανθρωπος, for "man" in the sense of "person / mankind / human being".

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

From The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon:
aner is used
-with reference to sex
-of a male of a husband
-of a betrothed or future husband
-with reference to age, and to distinguish an adult man from a boy
-any male used generically of a group of both men and women

KJV translation usage of this word:
man 156, husband 50, sir 6, fellow 1, not translated 2

 

[Tim]

KJV translation usage of this word:
man 156, husband 50, sir 6, fellow 1, not translated 2

Okay, I think this is what one would call the semantic range. Now, how do you choose between "man" and "husband"? And why would the NIV be so different from the other translations I mentioned in the OP?

 

[Prufrock]

I think the NIV is simply trying to reinforce what they think to be the meaning of the verse: it is not by natural child birth, but spiritual birth; it's not by decisions made by a husband and wife to have a child. By using husband (instead of the vague "man"), it makes this very clear.

 

[Tim]

I think the NIV is simply trying to reinforce what they think to be the meaning of the verse: it is not by natural child birth, but spiritual birth; it's not by decisions made by a husband and wife to have a child. By using husband (instead of the vague "man"), it makes this very clear.

Yes, and why did they choose that meaning? Put another way, if I were to read the Greek myself (if I had the ability to read it fluently), what understanding would I have? How would I know the meaning that is intended?

As you have said, husband is more specific than man (husband is a category of man).

 

[TimV]

who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

I also think the NIV authors were just making their theology known. If those who in the first part of the sentence

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Became God's people not by blood (race, i.e. children of Abraham) or by the will of the parents, or by the will of man (free will of the individual once he's born) then everything fits together naturally.

But if you strongly believe the mankind has a free will to choose, then you make will of the flesh and will of man a kind of double reinforcing of the same thought, i.e. meaning before the person is ever born.

 

[fredtgreco]

I think the NIV is simply trying to reinforce what they think to be the meaning of the verse: it is not by natural child birth, but spiritual birth; it's not by decisions made by a husband and wife to have a child. By using husband (instead of the vague "man"), it makes this very clear.

Yes, and why did they choose that meaning? Put another way, if I were to read the Greek myself (if I had the ability to read it fluently), what understanding would I have? How would I know the meaning that is intended?

As you have said, husband is more specific than man (husband is a category of man).

Husband does not make any sense here. It jumps into the middle of the text without warrant (in my opinion). I think the NIV nods here (to use a Classics-ism)

 

[TsonMariytho]

Husband does not make any sense here. It jumps into the middle of the text without warrant (in my opinion). I think the NIV nods here (to use a Classics-ism)

I can't think offhand of any other reading of the text that strongly asserts the masculinity of the "man" that makes any sense. Can you? Or do you disagree that they should interpret the "man" as specifically male there?

 

[fredtgreco]

Husband does not make any sense here. It jumps into the middle of the text without warrant (in my opinion). I think the NIV nods here (to use a Classics-ism)

I can't think offhand of any other reading of the text that strongly asserts the masculinity of the "man" that makes any sense. Can you? Or do you disagree that they should interpret the "man" as specifically male there?

Say again? Sorry, but I am not following your question. (Must need another cup of coffee).

 

[TimV]

I can't think offhand of any other reading of the text that strongly asserts the masculinity of the "man" that makes any sense. Can you? Or do you disagree that they should interpret the "man" as specifically male there?

But why husband? How does the marriage status of the person in question make any sense theologically? Why not will of the boyfriend, or will of any other sub category of male capable if impregnating a female.

I think it this case the word has to me translated in it's most general meaning, otherwise one is forced to pick from any number of general meanings which automatically exclude the others.

 

[Tim]

TsonMariytho, if you are asking if "man" in this passage could mean "mankind (male or female), Strong's dictionary makes it clear that the word is definitely masculine.

 

[Davidius]

TsonMariytho, if you are asking if "man" in this passage could mean "mankind (male or female), Strong's dictionary makes it clear that the word is definitely masculine.

That doesn't really decide the question. In Greek, ho anthropos (too lazy to get out TypeGreek) is masculine, but refers to any person, not just a male.

 

[TsonMariytho]

TsonMariytho, if you are asking if "man" in this passage could mean "mankind (male or female), Strong's dictionary makes it clear that the word is definitely masculine.

Maybe I need some caffeine myself, and am missing something.

I thought that TimV and Fred were criticizing the NIV's rendering of "man" as a father making the decision to conceive a child, suggesting that there wasn't a strong reason (or as Fred said, it "does not make any sense") to read it that way.

If we're talking about a generic human being, we can doctrinally assert that his new birth is not caused by a decision made by a person's own will. However, given that the word has a strongly male affinity, I was curious why Fred said there was "no reason" to render it as the person's paternal parent; which made me ask:

1. Whether Fred can think of another way to read it that retains the male-ness of the man (silly question -- if it's not the father, but the subject, then is this verse not true of women?).

... or...

2. Whether Fred rejects that the "man" is distinctly male there.

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 12:17:10 EST-----

But why husband? How does the marriage status of the person in question make any sense theologically? Why not will of the boyfriend, or will of any other sub category of male capable if impregnating a female.

I think it this case the word has to me translated in it's most general meaning, otherwise one is forced to pick from any number of general meanings which automatically exclude the others.

Replied before reading the above...

I think if the translators had chosen a rendering that made it clear they were talking about a conjugally related man without consideration of marriage status, they would get castigated from a different group of people!

So that objection is fine as far as it goes, but many times the scriptures speak in general terms about the normal case. We should regard it as the normal case that married people beget children.

E.g. nowadays we can clone children without any parents in the normal sense, but we don't expect every scripture that talks generically about parents and children to specifically recognize this possibility.

 

[Tim]

TsonMariytho, if you are asking if "man" in this passage could mean "mankind (male or female), Strong's dictionary makes it clear that the word is definitely masculine.

That doesn't really decide the question. In Greek, ho anthropos (too lazy to get out TypeGreek) is masculine, but refers to any person, not just a male.

No, but the word in John 1:13 was ανδρος (andros) which is the same word ἀνήρ (aner). Did you get mixed up?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi;

From Mounce's Expository Dictionary:

aner generally means a "man" as opposed to a woman (e.g. Mt. 14:21; 1 Cor. 11:3-15); it is also the word for "husband" (e.g., Mk. 10:2; Rom. 7:2-3; Eph. 5:22-25, 28, 33). Occasionally it can mean simply "adult male" (e.g. 1 Cor. 13:11) or even "human being" (Lk. 5:8; Jas. 1:20).

As in any case of exegesis the definition of the word changes with the context. So, let us look at each of the renderings in the passage:

1) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of males, but of God.

2) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of the husband, but of God.

3) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of the adult male, but of God.

4) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a human being, but of God.

aner is used in John 1:30 to signify Jesus "a single male."

These are the only two instances of the word being used in the whole corpus of John's writing. I am going to put much weight on John's rendering in 1:30 and argue that he uses the word to simply mean "a man" - as in any man. The word is not used in reference to Jesus as a "husband," but to him simply being "a man." However, I think there is a slight change in the 1:13 usage, because John seems to be indicating more than one thing in his passage.

Therefore, I would go with the 4th rendering thus:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

Thus, John is saying that we are not born again because of our descent (blood) nor of our own fleshly will, nor of our own (free) will, but by the will of God.

To read "husband" in the word does not make too much sense to me. Unless, one is reading something like "head of household." But, I do not see such as a valid rendering elsewhere in John.

Hope this helps,

Rob

 

[Tim]

Therefore, I would go with the 4th rendering thus:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

...

To read "husband" in the word does not make too much sense to me. Unless, one is reading something like "head of household." But, I do not see such as a valid rendering elsewhere in John.

So, to describe your method, you have looked at other instances of aner, particularly from John's gospel, and decided upon the rendering from there. Is that basically what you have done?

 

[TimV]

Rob, I noticed you put the definite article in front of man, and none of the other translations including all three Greek texts I checked did that. Is there a definite article possible to use in Greek before man in a case like this?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Tim:

Yes, in essence: First, I looked at the straight definition of the word in a Hebrew/Greek dictionary. I noticed that there were several definitions of the word. I then looked at those definitions in the context of the passage cited. I then looked at the way in which the author used the word in other verses (in this case John). This "narrowed" the definition down for me (I would have been more happy if there were more instances of the use of the word by John), but it gave me enough information to make a decision.

If I still had a question at this point, then I would have started to look at the way other authors were using the same word. I probably would have looked at possible parallel passages, or, similar usages by other NT writers. This, however, may have "broadened" the definition rather than narrowing it to a specific usage.

I then looked at the context of the passage, and I was quite pleased with the use of the term "human being" rather than "male," or, "husband," or "adult male." In doing this I asked the question of the passage:

1) Is John speaking only about males (young or old) in this passage? No I don't think so.

2) Is John speaking only about husbands in this passage? No.

3) Is John speaking only about adult males in this passage? No.

4) It appears to me that John is speaking about all of humanity (male and female) in this passage.

Blessings,

Rob

PS: Happily, Matthew Henry agrees with me:

(2) It is not produced by the natural power of our own will. As it is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, so neither is it of the will of man, which labours under a moral impotency of determining itself to that which is good; so that the principles of the divine life are not of our own planting, it is the grace of God that mkes us willing to be his. Nor can human laws or writings prevail to sanctify and regenerate a soul; if they could, the new birth would be by the will of man, Commentary, pg. 1917.

-Using Commentaries should be your last resort - as a means of checking yourself to see if you came up with the right interpretation.

-RPW

Therefore, I would go with the 4th rendering thus:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.

...

To read "husband" in the word does not make too much sense to me. Unless, one is reading something like "head of household." But, I do not see such as a valid rendering elsewhere in John.

So, to describe your method, you have looked at other instances of aner, particularly from John's gospel, and decided upon the rendering from there. Is that basically what you have done?

-----Added 12/15/2008 at 04:04:47 EST-----

Rob, I noticed you put the definite article in front of man, and none of the other translations including all three Greek texts I checked did that. Is there a definite article possible to use in Greek before man in a case like this?

The Greek does not have a definite article. I placed it in there to differentiate it from #1 "male." The "a" is not necessary. I think that andros is in the nominative singular in Greek. The sense I get is that it refers to every single man (male or female), or, every single human being.

The construction is the same with nor out of the will of the flesh: oude ek thelematos sarkos

Compare, nor of the will of "a" human being: oude ek thelematos andros.
(The readings are from the Critical Text - I just happed to have mine handy)

That was sharp of you, and KMK, to pick that out.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[jawyman]

Husband makes no sense to me either. I took a look at the Greek text and I would have come up with man as well as it fits the context. Regarding the language, I looked to my knowledge of German and in the German language they use the word "mann" which means literally "man", but it also means "husband" as in "Lass mich meinen mann vorstellen" (let me introduce my husband). However, the feminine is different with different meanings. "Frau" literally means a married woman, but "weib" means a female. I know we are speaking of the Greek, but here is a parallel I found regarding my exegesis of the text.
Last thought, I worked for Zondervan for several years and it is widely known the NIV translation has several linguistic, contextual, and stylistic nuances that the more faithful translations do not.

 

[Jon Lake]

You people stop making fun of my old translation!!!!!

 

[Grymir]

Don't worry Jon, you redeemed yourself, remember, that new, cool NKJV?

The NIV has a bad reputation for good reasons.