About the EOB New Testament

The EOB New Testament was prepared for personal study and liturgical use in English-speaking Orthodox Christian communities. Its format and font are designed to make both activities accessible and rewarding. Every attempt has been made to offer an accurate and scholarly translation of the Greek text, free of the theological bias that has affected most other translations of the New Testament, including the NIV (2 Thess. 2:15) and NAB (Matt. 5:32).

Another intention of this translation is to foster interest in learning the Greek language (biblical, patristic and modern), which is why many footnotes make reference to the underlying Greek vocabulary.

The purpose of this edition is also to make the reader aware of possible textual variants by footnoting all significant instances where the Patriarchal Text (PT) may not agree with the Textus Receptus (TR), the Majority Text (MT) or the Critical Text (CT). In several instances, the footnotes will provide references to specific manuscripts.

* * *

Until the publication of the EOB, the King James and New King James versions have been the preferred translations, partly because they are based on the Textus Receptus (TR) which is a Byzantine-type text that is close to the normative ecclesiastical text of the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches.

The Textus Receptus (Latin: “received text”) is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for Luther’s original German Bible. The TR was also used for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, for the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

This series of printed texts originated with the first printed Greek New Testament to be published. This project was undertaken in Basel in 1516 by Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Roman Catholic scholar and humanist. This first TR was assembled on the basis of six manuscripts which put together did not actually contain the entirety of the New Testament. For this reason, the Erasmus TR is especially problematic for the book of Revelation. Although based mainly on late manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type, Erasmus’ edition differed markedly from the classic form of that text. In 1,838 places (1,005 translatable) Textus Receptus differs from the Byzantine text-type (Majority Text). The TR was subsequently revised by Robert Estienne (known as Stefanus) (1503–1559), a printer from Paris, who edited four times the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551.

The origin of the term “Textus Receptus” comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by the Elzevir brothers in Amsterdam.

Several versions of the King James Version (KJV) currently exist, but all suffer from the imperfections of the Textus Receptus prepared by Erasmus (1522, third edition) from a small number of manuscripts and revised by Stephanus (1550). Moreover, the Old Testament of the KJV is mostly based on the Masoretic text and fails to include significant Septuagintal variants. Also, even though the original 1611 edition of the KJV included the so-called ‘apocryphal’ books, these were removed in subsequent editions, thus preventing proper ecclesiastical use in an Orthodox context¹.

In North America, most parishes of the Orthodox Church in America and of the Antiochian Archdiocese still use Elizabethan English in the liturgy, in which case the KJV does provide linguistic continuity, although at the expense of universal accessibility. In practice however, it seems that the majority of Orthodox parishes read the Scriptures in formal but contemporary English, often from the New King James Version (NKJV). This particular modern-language translation is also based on the Textus Receptus and follows the formal-equivalency approach and general style of the KJV. In addition, the NKJV provides comprehensive footnotes which discuss significant variant readings. One major limitation with the NKJV is that it is a commercial, copyrighted translation which lies completely outside the control of the Orthodox Christian community. Moreover, certain issues of translation and terminology (discussed below) also called for revisions within an Orthodox context.

The EOB (Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible or Holy Bible of the [Eastern / Greek] Orthodox Churches) addresses these limitations, both in the Old and New Testaments. A limited copyright (see inner front page) is held by the publisher but the text is non-commercial, held within the Orthodox community and made available almost without constraints to the Standing Conference of Orthodox Canonical Bishops, both for revisions and for liturgical use. Moreover, Orthodox Christians are invited to submit their suggestions so that the published text may be regularly updated and improved.

Unlike the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB), the EOB footnotes focus on textual and translation issues, and refrain from providing extensive theological or doctrinal interpretations. Hence, the goal of the main text is to provide the reader with a clear sense of what the Scriptures say with possible nuances, not how they should be interpreted.

There are two reasons for this philosophy. The first one is that footnote commentaries are often perceived as “authoritative” by the reader – almost on the level of Scripture or official commentary. Hence, the reader’s attention is directed to particular explanation, at the risk of not letting the inspired text speak for itself. The second reason is that a few of the explanatory footnotes of the OSB may be debated among Orthodox theologians, as in the case of Acts 1:20 and Revelation 17:1 among others. Please refer to the introductions and appendices for appropriate explanations.

The translation of the New Testament included in the EOB is based on the official Greek text published by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1904 (Patriarchal Text or PT). During the Turkish occupation of the Greek lands, various editions of the NT had been published with significant variants. In 1902, in order to ensure ecclesiastical harmony, the Ecumenical Patriarchate appointed a committee whose task was to publish a common and official text. This committee retired to Mount Athos and studied about 20 major Byzantine manuscripts from which they adopted one, yet taking into consideration significant variants from other manuscripts. This text, which is very close to the so- called Majority Text (MT), was published for the first time in 1904. It has since then been adopted by all Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus, and Crete). Its purpose is not to offer an always speculative reconstruction of the original autographs but to provide a uniform ecclesiastical text which is a reliable and accurate witness to the truth of the Christian faith.

This Greek text was prepared more than a hundred years ago, hence before the discovery of new manuscripts and before the development of textual criticism. For this reason, even though the Patriarchal text is primary for the main body of the EOB/NT, constant reference has been made to so-called Critical Text (CT) published by the United Bible Society (UBS/NA₂₇ 4^th edition). In the process of comparing the differences between the Patriarchal Text and the Critical Text, special attention has been given to patristic quotations. All significant variants between PT/MT/TR and CT have been studied and footnoted to provide variant readings.

The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of certain Greek New Testament manuscripts. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts.

The New Testament text of the Greek Orthodox Churches, the Patriarchal edition of 1904 (PT), is based on this text-type. This textual tradition also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text.

A synthetic Greek New Testament text based on these majority readings – hence the name “Majority Text” – has been produced by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, although this text does not correspond to any one particular manuscript.

There are only six manuscripts earlier than the 9th century which conform to the Byzantine text-type; of which the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, (the oldest), is Byzantine only in the Gospels with the rest of the New Testament being Alexandrian. By comparison, the Alexandrian text-type is witnessed by nine surviving uncials earlier than the ninth century (including the Codex Alexandrinus outside the Gospels); and is also usually considered to be demonstrated in three earlier papyri. Modern critical editions of the New Testament tend to conform most often to Alexandrian witnesses – especially Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (see below). The earliest of the Church Fathers who is considered to be a consistent witness to a Byzantine text-type in NT quotations is St. John Chrysostom.

Orthodox Christians should be aware that the foundational Greek text used by most modern translations such as the New International Version and (New) Revised Standard Version is the Critical Text (CT). By contrast, the foundational text for the King James and New King James versions is the Textus Receptus (TR). Moreover, many use the dynamic-equivalency translation approach as opposed to formal-equivalency. Due to doctrinal bias and other aberrations, these translations are generally prohibited for ecclesiastical use by Orthodox hierarchs.

The EOB/NT was translated using the formal-equivalency approach, although like the King James Version, it sometimes adopts dynamic-equivalent readings. Also, and for the purpose of easier readability and comprehension, long Greek sentences have been broken down into smaller units, yet without significant alterations of the intended meaning or of the original word-flow².

Most scholars recognize the existence of four families of New Testament manuscripts: Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean. Obviously, all of these are part of the historical heritage of Orthodox Christianity.

The majority of (Greek) manuscripts available today belong to the Byzantine type. They are all very close to the Textus Receptus which underlies the KJV/NKJV, to the Majority Text which is reconstructed based on the majority³ of manuscripts, and to the Patriarchal Text. The Patriarchal Text of 1904 is indeed extremely close to modern editions of the Majority Text, such as the Hodges & Farstad of 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson of 1991.

On the other hand, there are significant variants between TR/MT/PT and the Critical Text. These variants are documented in the EOB footnotes. The reason for these “alternative readings” should be known and understood by all Orthodox Christians.

Based on the discovery of new manuscripts, especially Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and ancient Egyptian papyri, modern textual critics analyze the relative value of each manuscript with the laudable intention of recovering the original reading of the New Testament autographs.

Codex⁴ Sinaiticus (British Library, Gregory-Aland nº א (Aleph⁵) or 01) was discovered in 1859 by Constantin von Tischendorf when he was staying at the Greek Orthodox Monastery of St. Catherine of Sinai. During his first visit to the Monastery, Tischendorf had noticed what appeared to be very ancient manuscripts in the wastebasket used for fire kindling. His excitement and alarm at the content of the monastic wastebasket was noticed by the monks, but in spite of the growing concern of his hosts, the German visitor was still able to consult ancient texts of great value. When he returned to the Monastery several years later to present as a gift his recently published edition of the Septuagint, his monastic guests expressed interest and appreciation. Tischendorf writes:

On the afternoon of this day, I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighborhood, and as we returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said: “And I, too, have read a Septuagint” – i.e. a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas⁶.

Tsar Alexander II, who had commissioned Tischendorf’s expedition, sent the monastery 9,000 rubles to compensate the monastery for the ‘loss’ of the manuscript. It should be noted that Tischendorf had promised that the codex would be returned to the monastery, but this never materialized. Instead, this ancient treasure was long kept by the Russian National Library and in 1933, the Soviet Union sold it to the British Library for £100,000.

Hence, Codex Sinaiticus is not only one of the oldest manuscripts available today (330–350), it is also Orthodox in origin and was not itself ‘discovered in a trash can’ as many mistakenly believe. On the other hand, the codex is heavily corrected and may not be as reliable as modern textual critics often claim.

Codex Vaticanus (Vatican Library, Gregory-Aland no. B or 03) is also one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. Its origins are not known, but it has been suggested that Codex Vaticanus was among the fifty bibles commissioned by Emperor St. Constantine I to Eusebius of Caesarea. The EOB/OT and Brenton’s LXX are primarily based on this manuscript (except for 1–4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh which are absent).

Codex Alexandrinus (British Library, Gregory-Aland no. A or 02) is a 5^th century manuscript containing the majority of the Septuagint and the New Testament. It is also considered as one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. It is named after the See of Alexandria where it resided for a number of years until the 17th century when Patriarch Cyril Lukaris offered it to the British Crown.

In general, the Critical Text follows Sinaiticus and Vaticanus when they agree, which is rarer than one would expect. The Critical Text also tends to follow Sinaiticus or Vaticanus when either one agrees with ancient papyri and pre-Nicene quotations.

Inasmuch as the debate still rages among biblical scholars regarding the relative merits of the Majority (Byzantine) Text versus the so-called Critical/Alexandrian Text, the EOB always follows the Patriarchal Text with textual signs such as footnotes, [ ], <>, and {}.

Although there are good scholarly arguments both for and against using the Byzantine Majority Text over the Critical Text, many Orthodox hierarchs and theologians take the following into consideration:

– When a scribe had a choice of manuscripts to copy, he would normally copy the one that he trusted the most, thus causing the most trusted text to be copied more often;

– The Holy Spirit takes an active interest in preserving what He has inspired and in what the Church has used for her liturgical life. At the very least, the Byzantine textual tradition reflects ‘the life of the Spirit in the Church’ and can be considered ‘the ecclesiastical text’ and an assured witness.

It is important to note that no doctrine is ever at stake on account of these variant readings. Moreover, if ancient writers such as Origen, Irenaeus, Basil or Chrysostom supported a non-Byzantine variant reading of significance, this will be mentioned in a footnote. Again, it is important to note that the main in-page wording of the EOB New Testament follows the Patriarchal/ecclesiastical text.

The EOB/NT project began as a revision of the WEB (World English Bible) which is a fairly accurate, easy-to-read and well-respected public-domain translation based on the Majority Text. The WEB does not suffer from the constraints and occasional biases of other translations such as the NIV (New International Version). It is primarily an update of the 1901 edition of the ASV (American Standard Version) using the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, (also called The Stuttgart Bible), in the Old Testament⁷, and the Byzantine Majority Text (MT) in the New.

During the process of verifying, correcting and retranslating the WEB text for the EOB/NT edition, the Patriarchal Text of 1904 and the UBS/NA Critical Text were systematically consulted. In addition, recent scholarly studies have been taken into consideration, notably Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Murray J. Harris); Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament (Jason BeDuhn) and New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Philip Comfort).

Indeed, the revision and retranslation work has been so extensive as to make the EOB/NT an entirely new translation prepared to ensure accuracy and harmony with Orthodox theology and terminology.

Compared to other translations, the following differences are noteworthy:

The Greek words διάκονος (diakonos), πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) and ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos), are translated “deacon” (instead of “servant” or “minister”), “presbyter” (instead of “elder”) and “overseer”.

The modern English word “priest” is derived from “presbyter” but in a confused manner: it actually conveys the idea of “one who offers a sacrifice”. which is in Greek ἱερεύς (hiereus) כֹּהֵן (kohen) in Hebrew. The Greek Orthodox tradition has properly retained the distinction between πρεσβύτερος and ἱερεύς; the latter is applied to the Christian minister of the altar in his function as offerer of the Eucharistic gifts on behalf of the priestly people, which is why the Christian “priest” (Greek: ἱερεύς Latin: sacerdos) par excellence originally was and still is the bishop. It is only with the development of the presbyter-led parish that the term “priest” (ἱερεύς) came to be applied to the presbyter in his function as celebrant of the Eucharist. To this day, the annual directory of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America uses the title of “presbyter”, thereby maintaining the most traditional and theologically accurate terminology.

In the New Testament, presbyter and overseer are interchangeable and synonymous,⁸ which is why the EOB/NT translates ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) as “overseer”, not “bishop”.

For more information on the meaning of these terms and the biblical-apostolic origins of the so-called Monarchic episcopate, please refer to Appendix A.

Most translations fail to properly distinguish between ἱερόν (hieron) and ναός (naos) which are both rendered as “temple”. In the context of both heavenly and Jewish Temple worship, which finds their fulfillment in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Churches, this difference is quite significant. Temple (ἱερόν) usually refers to the overall structure, whereas (ναός) (“place of divine dwelling”) normally refers to the sanctuary, either the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies.

The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words ᾅδης (hades) and γέεννα (gehenna) as “hell”. This is often reflected in older Orthodox liturgical texts which say that “Christ descended into hell”.

However, properly speaking, “hell” is theologically equivalent to gehenna or to “the lake of fire” of the “second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8). On the other hand, hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew שְׁאוֹל (sheol) – the common place or state of the reposed. Paradise (Luke 23:43) or Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22) were understood as places or conditions within hades-sheol. Hence, the spirits of the righteous of old, as well as that of the repentant thief and of our Lord himself went into hades, but not into hell (gehenna or “the lake of fire”). The EOB makes this important distinction.

In modern English, “worship” (like prayer) has mainly taken on the meaning of an act (invocation, prostration) offered exclusively to God. However, the original and official semantic range of this word used to be much wider, as was the case of the Greek word προσκυνέω (proskuneo) which is normatively applied to God but also to human beings⁹. The idea conveyed by proskuneo is that of “offering obeisance”, “making a physical demonstration of veneration and respect” or “prostrating oneself”. With this in mind, the New American Bible sometimes translates proskuneo as “to do homage”, including when applied to Jesus.

In contemporary Eastern Orthodox terminology, the equivalent of proskuneo is often “venerate”.

The Marriam-Webster dictionary offers the following definition for ‘worship’:

Function: verb; Inflected Form(s): -shipped also -shiped; -ship·ping also -ship·ing

1: to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power

2: to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion… synonym see REVERE

As a result, some scholars have decided to translate proskuneo consistently as “worship”. but many others do not use “worship” in contexts where proskuneo is properly offered to a creature¹⁰. Indeed, there are instances when proskuneo is reserved for God (Exodus 20:5 LXX, Acts 10:25, Rev. 22:9) and others when proskuneo can be properly offered to creatures as derivative icons of God (1Chronicles 29:20 LXX, 1 Kings 2:13 LXX, Rev. 3:9). Hence, although ‘all honor, glory and worship are due to God,’ relative honor, glory and worship are due to parents, rulers, bishops, angels, saints, etc.

In the development of the Eastern Orthodox dogmatic framework and at the time of the iconoclastic controversy, St. John of Damascus and the Seventh Ecumenical Council clarified the definition of proskuneo as “derivative or relative worship” or “veneration”, while acknowledging the fact that proskuneo can also mean “worship” in the highest sense. On this basis, the Council declared such acts of reverence to be proper if the intention is to ultimately honor the ‘the true God and Father’¹¹ by honoring his icons, primarily the Son who is the perfect icon,¹² “True God of True God” and who shares the uncreated nature of the Father¹³, but also created icons, such as rulers and saints¹⁴. For clarity’s sake, the Council also declared that the highest form of worship would be associated with the unambiguous word latruo/latreia, a semantic clarification and adjustment comparable with the one that took place with the words episkopos and ousia/hypostasis¹⁵. Indeed, latreia is never used in the Scriptures in reference to anyone but God¹⁶. As the editor of the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council for the Post-Nicene Fathers series observed¹⁷:

The Council was most explicit in declaring that this was merely a veneration of honor and affection, such as can be given to the creature, and that under no circumstances could the adoration of divine worship be given to them but to God alone.

The Greek language has in this respect a great advantage over the Hebrew, the Latin and the English; it has a word which is a general word and is properly used of the affectionate regard and veneration shown to any person or thing, whether to the divine Creator or to any of his creatures, this word is proskunesis; it has also another word which can properly be used to denote only the worship due to the most high, God, this word is latreia. When then the Council defined that the worship of “latria” was never to be given to any but God alone, it cut off all possibility for idolatry, mariolatry, iconolatry, or any other “latry” except “theo-latry”. If therefore any of these other “latrines” exist or ever have existed, they exist or have existed not in accordance with, but in defiance of, the decree of the Second Council of Nicea.

But unfortunately, we have neither in Hebrew, Latin, nor English any word with this restricted meaning, and therefore when it became necessary to translate the Greek acts and the decree, great difficulty was experienced, and by the use of “adoro” as the equivalent of proskuneo many were scandalized, thinking that it was divine adoration which they were to give to the sacred images, which they knew would be idolatry. The same trouble is found in rendering into English the acts and decrees; for while indeed properly speaking “worship” no more means necessarily divine worship in English than “adoratio” does in Latin (e.g. I. Chr. 29:20, “All the congregation bowed down their heads and worshiped the Lord and the King” [i.e. Solomon]; Luke 14:10, “Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee”), yet to the popular mind “the worship of images” is the equivalent of idolatry. In the following translations I have uniformly translated as follows and the reader from the English will know what the word is in the original.

Proskuneo, to venerate; timao, to honour; latreuo, to adore; aspazomai, to salute; douleuo, to serve; eikon, an image.

The relative force of proskunesis and latreia cannot better be set forth than by Archbishop Trench’s illustration of two circles having the same centre, the larger including the less.

To make this matter still clearer I must ask the reader’s attention to the use of the words abadh and shachah in the Hebrew; the one abadh, which finds, when used with reference to God or to false gods its equivalent in latreuo; the other shachah, which is represented by proskuneo. Now in the Old Testament no distinction in the Hebrew is drawn between these words when applied to creator or creature. The one denotes service primarily for hire; the other bowing down and kissing the hand to any in salutation. Both words are constantly used and sometimes refer to the Creator and sometimes to the creature–e.g., we read that Jacob served (abadh) Laban (Gen. 29:20); and that Joshua commanded the people not to serve the gods of their fathers but to serve (abadh) the Lord (Josh. 24:14). And for the use of shachah the following may suffice: “And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers and bowed down their heads and worshiped (Hebrew, shachah; Greek, proskuneo; Latin, adoro) the Lord and the King” (I. Chr. 29:20). But while it is true of the Hebrew of the Old Testament that there is no word which refers alone to Divine Worship this is not true of the Septuagint Greek nor of the Greek of the New Testament, for in both proskuneo has always its general meaning, sometimes applying to the creature and sometimes to the Creator; but latreuo is used to denote divine worship alone, as St. Augustine pointed out long ago.

This distinction comes out very clearly in the inspired translation of the Hebrew found in Matthew 4:10, “Thou shalt worship (proskuneseis) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve (latreuseis)”. “Worship” was due indeed to God above all but not exclusively to him, but latria is to be given to “him only”.

With this background in mind and taking into account the current, narrow sense of “worship”. the EOB has opted to always translate προσκυνέω (proskuneo) as “to express adoration” with a consistent explanatory footnote. This approach faithfully conveys the meaning of proskuneo by combining the idea of a physical (or mental) expression with the broad sense of “adoration / to adore”.

Latreia is always rendered by the expression “to offer divine service”.

Note: The table below provides every instance where proskuneo is used; it is always and consistently translated “to express adoration”.

It is normative to translate the Greek expression βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as “Kingdom of God”, although some scholars have also noted that such a translation is problematic. The late Fr. John Romanides insisted that:

Another example is the phrase «kingdom of God» which makes it a creation of God instead of the uncreated ruling power of God. What is amazing is that the term «kingdom of God» appears not once in the original Greek of the New Testament. Not knowing that the «rule» or «reign of God» is the correct translation of the Greek «Basileia tou Theou”. [many] do not see that the promise of Christ to his apostles in Mt.16:28, Lk. 9:27 and Mk. 9:1, i.e. that they will see God's ruling power, was fulfilled during the Transfiguration which immediately follows in the above three gospels. Here Peter, James and John see Christ as the Lord of Glory i.e. as the source of God's uncreated «glory» and «basileia» i.e. uncreated ruling power, denoted by the uncreated cloud or glory which appeared and covered the three of them during the Lord of Glory's Transfiguration. It was by means of His power of Glory that Christ, as the pre-incarnate Lord (Yahweh) of Glory, had delivered Israel from its Egyptian slavery and led it to freedom and the land of promise. The Greek text does not speak about the «Basileion (kingdom) of God”. but about the «Basileia (rule or reign) of God”. by means of His uncreated glory and power¹⁸.

For this reason, the YLT proposes “reign” as the most accurate translation, and a few translations occasionally render βασιλεία as “reign” (NJB Luke 1:33). After due consideration, the EOB consistently maintains the usual translation (“Kingdom”) but the reader should be aware of this option and that “reign” or “rule” may be more accurate translations.

New Testament Greek can be confusing if subjects and pronouns are translated literally, as in “He said to him”. The EOB/NT often replaces “he” with “Jesus” and “them” with “the disciples” or “the Pharisees”, as dictated by the context. If a replacement is potentially problematic, a footnote indicates the Greek original.

Hebrew names follow the now usual Masoretic style, except for “Elias/Elijah”, “Isaias/Isaiah” and “Zacharias/Zachariah” which are rendered in the EOB/NT as Elias (Elijah), Isaias (Isaiah) and Zacharias (Zachariah). Public readers may choose either pronunciation.

Many recent translations have gone to great length to introduce questionable translation techniques in order to avoid any reference to “him”, “he”, “man”, etc. In many cases, these translations render singular constructions such as “he who loves” into a plural, gender-neutral form “they who love”. On the other hand, the original Greek is often gender-neutral (“the one believing”) whereas the English may in fact introduce a gender element, as in “he who believes”, for the sake of common usage.

As can be expected, the EOB/NT does not attempt to artificially avoid the traditional forms of expression and the personal-singular emphasis of the original Greek. Singular constructions are always maintained, except in rare instances (James 5:13–20) where the context does call for such a translation. In this case, an appropriate footnote is placed to indicate the fact that the underlying Greek is singular.

“He who calls his brother…” is often translated “Whoever calls his brother” or “The one who calls his brother” because this rendition is both faithful to the text and intention of the inspired writer as well as reasonably inclusive.

The EOB/NT translates adelphoi as “brethren” when the word denotes a spiritual relationship. This is a traditional and well-understood way to include all the members of the family of Christ. In most cases, adelphoi does convey the meaning of “brothers and sisters”. but not always¹⁹,a as the context may indicate.

For an in-depth discussion of the meaning of ἀδελφοί when applied to the family of the Lord ‘according to the flesh’, please consult Appendix E.

Greek manuscripts do not have any capitalization. Hence, the introduction of capitalized forms is arbitrary and should be clarified.

The EOB does not currently capitalize pronouns that refer to divinity. Specific nouns such as ‘Lord’, ‘Spirit’, ‘Lamb’, ‘Son of Man’ and ‘God’ are capitalized. The reader should be aware that the capitalization of spirit is especially arbitrary and may in some instances influence one’s understanding of the text.

‘Name’ is capitalized when it refers to the divine Name(s).

‘Good News’ (in reference to the Gospel) is capitalized. This expression was normatively favored over the more traditional word ‘gospel’. The Greek word εὐαγγέλιον often conveyed the idea of ‘royal news delivered with authority’.

The English word “spirit” (or “Spirit”) normally translates the Greek πνεῦμα (pneuvma) and the Hebrew רוּחַ (ruah). For this word, capitalization is a major factor in leading the reader towards a particular understanding many passages, and we have seen that this has no equivalent in Greek and that the decision to capitalize is quite arbitrary²¹.c In addition to this possible cause of misunderstandings, the meaning of the word itself is quite varied. The first thing to notice is that both pnevma and ruah also convey the meaning “breath” or “wind”²², which explains the subtle nuances of such passages as Genesis 1:2; John 3:8 or James 2:26. On this basis, we could say that pnevma and ruah are used in reference to an unseen causal agent whose effects are visible. The Greek somewhat complicates the matter because it pnevma is neuter, which is why it is never spoken of with personal pronouns. Certainly, there a solid biblical reasons to believe in the hypostatic (personal, conscious) character of spirit and Spirit, but an unbiased translation requires the use of the conjunction “that / which” instead of “who / whom”. Good examples of how this is handled by various translations can be found by examining such texts as Acts 5:32, Ephesians 4:30 or 1Corinthians 6:19.

In the matter of capitalization, most translations follow the precedent of the King James Version in which perceived references to “the holy spirit (of God)” were capitalized as Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit in most recent translations). As a result, when capitalized, the word “Spirit” is assumed to mean “Holy Spirit”, even in cases where this may be less than certain. As it is, “Holy Spirit” appears 87 times in the New Testament, of which 45 occurrences lack the definite article (as in ‘a holy spirit’ without capitalization), but in many cases the Greek language does not require it. There are still 7 cases were the expression is truly indefinite and would necessitate the translation “a holy spirit” or more problematically “a Holy Spirit”. These texts are: Acts 8:15; 17–19; 10:38; 19:2; Luke 2:25; 11:13; John 20:22. Unlike other translations, the EOB footnotes explain the possible nuances of the expression “Holy Spirit / holy spirit” in these instances.

Finally, it may be useful to bear in mind the following ranges of meaning for pnevma which sometime cause some confusion:

§ The breath or life-giving spirit which animates the body

§ A person’s individual spirit, or even one’s private thoughts

§ The spiritual realm of activity which transcends (and may influence) material reality.

In a related matter, the EOB dedicates Appendix D to a discussion of John 15:26 and the Filioque controversy.

The punctuation approach followed in the EOB/NT may seem inconsistent and at odds with strict rules. The reason for this approach is to use punctuation marks primarily to make both personal and public reading easy to follow.

After due consideration, it was decided that the Lord’s form of emphatic introduction, either “Amen” or “Amen, Amen”, should be transliterated into English rather then translated as “Most certainly”, “Truly, truly”, etc.

Codex Sinaiticus (Gregory-Aland Number 01)

4th Century – British Museum