Brian, it's not quite like you think it is. This is excerpted from an article by AE Knoch:
godstruthfortoday.org
The usual translation, "Good were it for that man if he had never been born," has no foundation in the Original. In examining various translations, we must always bear in mind that the tendency to translate in accord with accepted theology is so overwhelmingly strong that a very little evidence on the other side is practical proof of the correctness of any unpopular translation. This is an excellent example. It is well known that the Revised Version margin is more dependable than the text, especially where the reading of the Greek is given. All will recognize how impossible it would be to get a two-thirds vote of the Revision Committee in favor of confirming this text to the Original. Few men who would do such a thing would be chosen for such a task. Yet there were a few who were faithful, and these succeeded in putting the truth into the margin: "Good were it for him, if that man had not been born."
The Birth of
Judas was not ...
In such passages as these we can realize the benefits of an exact concordant version. What was good for the Son of Mankind, and what was ideal, are two distinct ideas. I have no doubt that, at bottom, it was good for Him to have Judas, if we understand by "good" that which will work out the most blessing in the end.
... Ideal for the
Son of Mankind
The sphere of the word "good" is very wide and its force here is difficult to define. But the Greek word kales, "ideal", limits the thought to that which reaches our highest conception of perfection at the time. Twelve faithful apostles would be ideal for Christ, though one traitor was doubtless among the all things that worked together for good. So we may even be justified in saying that the birth of Judas was good, but not ideal, for the Son of Mankind.
Whatever may be our estimate of Rotherham's Emphasized Version, we may be quite sure that, at first, he made little attempt to pander to public opinion. The character of his translation makes his testimony of special weight in a matter of this kind. He was not concerned about the language so much as the sense. He renders it, "well would it have been for him, if that man had not been born."
Two translations used by Roman Catholics have this text correctly turned. The Douay version of Matthew 26:24 reads: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born." Dr. Leander van Ess, in his German version, renders it "for him were it better, such a human were never born".
LUTHER'S VERSION
Luther's version, by itself, is proof that the Concordant Version rendering is right. Though the Greek is precisely the same in Matthew and Mark, he renders it correctly in the former and twists it in the latter. May we ask, if it really read, good were it for Judas if he never had been born, would Luther, or any other translator, make it read, good were it for the Lord, if Judas had not been born? Never! But Luther reads (literally): "it were better for him that the same human never were born". In Mark 14:21 he renders the same words: "it were better for the same human that he never were born".
In the context immediately preceding, the identity of those referred to is fixed beyond question. It may be set forth as follows:
Him that man
(The Son of Mankind) (Judas)
The Son of Mankind is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning Him. Yet woe to that man through whom the Son of Mankind is being betrayed!
Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!
If it had read "Ideal were it for that man if he had not been born (as usually mistranslated) then both would refer to Judas. But no unprejudiced reader of the English or the Greek can possibly refer the Him to anyone but our Lord, Who is so termed in the preceding sentence.
But if all the translations ever made rendered the passage incorrectly, that would not prove anything except human fallibility -- which is already proven. The Original speaks of the Son of Mankind as Him and of Judas as that man, and makes it clear that it were ideal for Him if that man were not born. The real cause of this mistranslation is the hardness of the human heart. On the one hand, who has been concerned with the feelings of our Lord and His distress at having the traitor in His company? Even his saints seem utterly unable to sympathize with Him in this trial. On the other hand, they have allowed a just indignation at Judas' dreadful deed to degenerate into vindictiveness, and attribute to our Lord the harshness of their own hearts. In judging Judas they have condemned themselves.
The Scriptures show the utter helplessness of Judas. How could he flee from his fate? Not only were the powers of evil against him, but the powers of good were just as determined to make him play his part. God Himself had determined the role he should have, and Christ, the only Savior, must act in accord with the divine decree. I beg my readers not to evade the issue. Let them put themselves in Judas' place. What can a mortal do when Satan and Christ and God all force him to commit a deed so awful in his own eyes that it drives him to desperation and death?
A Vessel for Dishonor
It may help if I confess that I once feared to face this issue. I tried to find a way for God to get out of this dilemma. The idea that He could make vessels for dishonor (Rom. 9:21), and then punish them eternally was incredible. And I was right. God could not do such a thing. My mistake was to disbelieve God's plain statement and all the evidence which sustains it in the Scriptures, because I had accepted a false theology in regard to His future dealings with these vessels which He fits for destruction. Since I now know that God will not only deal justly with them, but lovingly, I am able to believe God, and glorify God, and exult in the God Who remains Love, even when He hardens and hates. |
