A Most Rare Rendering: Adding "Away" to "From" for "Apo"
Don’t take Triscuit to Greek class. Take country ham biscuits, or homemade brownies, but not Triscuit.
As detailed in “From the Presence of the Lord,” chapter twenty-four of my book Wholly Smoke - The Myth of Endless Torment, traditionalists maintain that the punishment of “everlasting destruction” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is eternal separation from God in conscious torment.
That's their interpretation, and it conveniently and curiously became an influential translation.
“Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” smack dab in the middle of the Lord’s coming with "mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance… in that day” is deemed parenthetical (meaning the actual punishment does not happen at the event described, but, say they, after and away).
In the text (1:7-10), the phrases “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven” and “when he shall come” tower like Big Ben keeping time over the Thames - “when” twins bookending the clause “who shall be punished with everlasting destruction.” Yet our endless friends are sure the “when” is not then - the destruction doesn’t happen at the coming, and the Lord so visibly present in the passage will not be for the punishment.
So, to be clear, when Jesus appears “in flaming fire taking vengeance” (“when he shall come”), the reader is to understand, according to apologists for ceaseless suffering, that the punishment of everlasting destruction does not occur at the same time or place as the appearing and coming, fire and vengeance, power and glory. To prod the reader to that conclusion it was helpful to add “away” to “from the presence of the Lord” in the translation.
Is this addition justified?
No need to restate here all the ample exegetical reasons why “from the presence of the Lord” should be understood as the source of the punishment, not separation from it; the purpose of this chapter is to prove that “away” should not be added to “from” as the translation of the Greek apo, and that doing so is an arbitrary interpretation, not an accurate translation.
While some insist “away from” is a “perfectly normal sense” of apo (it is), I contend that it is most certainly not a perfectly normal choice in translation (it isn’t), but is rather a most rare rendering.
As we shall see, the standard practice is to leave “from” unadorned.
When defending “from the presence of the Lord” as source, not separation, I have pointed to Acts 3:19 (3:20 in some versions) as an example of apo prosōpou (from the presence) that clearly expresses source.
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. Acts 3:19
While I am convinced the Greek and English of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 just as clearly expresses source, the comparison of the two texts has been challenged on the basis of the Greek verb elthosin (shall come) in Acts 3, and the absence of any such verb in 2 Thessalonians 1:9.
Sounds like a valid objection, but it’s an overreach. It implies Acts 3:19 needs the verb to express source - it doesn’t; and presumes 2 Thessalonians 1:9 doesn’t need a verb to express separation - it does, at least to justify adding an interpretive “away” instead of the predominant translation practice of leaving it “from” and letting the reader decide.
The presence of such a verb in Acts 3:19 is decisive but not essential for source, but the absence of such a verb in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is not suggestive of separation. The reality, according to the majority of translators, is just the opposite - an accompanying verb is essential when adding “away,” but not necessary for leaving it “from.”. Please read that again.
“What everyone is missing,” the challenge charged, “is that away from is a perfectly normal sense of apo.” When I countered with “so is from,” my response was summarily dismissed as “irrelevant.”
Irrelevant?
Does the objector suppose there is a default setting in the translation of apo that says without a qualifying verb the translator should add “away”? Is there? Or that it is at least justified to do so? Is it?
Why would it be relevant that “away from” (separation) is a perfectly normal sense of apo, but not relevant that “from” (source or separation) is also? The relevancy, as I see it, is that if both are perfectly normal, there must be a reason to choose one over the other. And there is.
Exactly like our English from, the Greek apo can mean source or separation. The bullet from the gun landed fifty feet from the target - the first “from” is speaking of source (from the gun); the second, separation (from the target).
In Greek and English it is most often most obvious which meaning is intended and seldom needs elaboration for clarification. For example, I did not have to say “out of the gun” for you to understand the gun was the source of the bullet; neither did I have to add “away” to “from the target” for you to recognize it missed it by fifty feet.
Context always decides in both Greek and English. Both from and apo go by their maiden name unless married to a verb expressing distance. But there is no such marriage in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 because there is no such verb. In some versions translators simply decided for you.
I cannot stress enough, the common practice of translators when translating apo “from” is to not add anything else. Let the reader decide (and again, it’s usually a very easy decision), unless - and this is a vital exception - unless there is more underlying Greek to translate. If there are no other Greek words relevant to source or separation, a word-for-word translation (often termed “formal equivalence”), keeps it simple, and leaves it “from.” Only a thought-for-thought translation contains unanchored additives.
So, the question of this chapter is not if “from” may mean “away,” but if “away” should be added to “from,” and if doing so in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is translation, or interpretation.
Our Greek teacher in Bible college offered an edible option for bad conjugation (that tedious task of determining the variation of the form of a verb). For every tasty treat brought to class he would give a “credit for” that would cancel a “mark against.” It was a long (two hours) and laborious class, and snack break was a welcome relief. Once, when I anticipated I would most likely need a credit (sleep won out over homework), I searched the pantry for something to offer to even my account. The only thing I could find was a box of Triscuit.
I learned a lesson. Don’t take Triscuit to Greek class. Take country ham biscuits, or homemade brownies, but not Triscuit. A gallon of milk or Toll House cookies (or both), but not Triscuit. Chips or nuts, pretzels or popcorn, cake or candy, but not a box of the square-baked whole wheat wafers. Cheese on Club, peanut butter on Ritz, even plain Chicken in a Biskit, but not Triscuit. Don’t do it.
Using lampoon like a harpoon, Professor Cash arched his brows, tilted his head, and squealed a high pitched “Triscuit?” in my direction as he approvingly browsed the other appetizing offerings, not only making me the laughingstock of the moment, but of the the day, the week, the month, the rest of the whole blasted semester. After that, all any of my classmates had to say to vex me and amuse each other was “Triscuit?!”
Rolled up in my instructor’s one-word ridicule was a question and rebuke. The question: “Who brings Triscuit?” (evidently no one had before or dared since). The rebuke: “Surely you can do better than that!”
When it comes to Greek in the final fate debate, there’s a lot of Triscuit.
Am I a Greek scholar? No. A student, yes, but not a scholar. Way too many students fancy themselves scholars, but there are few fancy scholars (credible specialists).
I passed the obligatory two semesters of Greek, memorized the alphabet and an assortment of familiar words, practiced conjugating verbs and parsing participles, scoured Machen and ransacked Thayer, and ultimately translated a portion of Mark’s gospel and John’s first epistle. Heady stuff, but it hardly qualifies me or anyone else as a scholar.
There was a time when all “students” were called “scholars, and those two words are still synonymous, but when it comes to Greek expertise, especially in the pulpit, there are far more parrots than owls. Fortunately, there is an abundance of online resources to assist any bird willing to do their homework.
This Bird knows enough to know how much I don’t know, and to know we can generally place confidence in what others do, what I call “the consensus of conscientious translation.” In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is a consensus (majority opinion) of rendering.
For example, in John 3:16, the consensus translation of apolētai is “perish” or something similar: “perish” in 42 versions; “be lost” - 8; “die” - 5; one each “destroyed,” “utterly destroyed,” and “everlasting destruction.”
So, for a pet store parrot to suggest that “perish” should be rendered or understood as “ruined” because they learned how to look up apolētai in a lexicon (Greek dictionary) and found that usage as a possible secondary meaning, or discovered that in some other text a form of apollumi was translated “marr,” is to esteem their second-hand knowledge superior to the accumulated acumen of an army of savvy, seasoned translators. The pet store parrot becomes a preening peacock or puffed up puffin. Triscuit?!
Is there a consensus of conscientious translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9? I say Yes, decidedly among early formative Bibles, expressly literal versions, and formal equivalence translations. That consensus (which we will endeavor to prove) is that when translating apo as “from,” no interpretive words are added, letting the reader decide if it means source or separation.
That is nearly the unanimous opinion when translating apo as “from,” well, anywhere other than 2 Thessalonians 1:9. We’ll call this exception “Exhibit A,” evidence that the additions to “from” in this one verse are interpretations, not translation.
Thought-for-thought translations and paraphrases have certainly taken creative liberties to embellish apo with interpretive adornment, from the Easy-to-Read Version’s elementary “will not be allowed to be with the Lord but will be kept away from his great power” to the Amplified Bible’s elaborate “the punishment of everlasting ruin (destruction and perdition) and eternal exclusion and banishment from the presence of the Lord.” The “will not be allowed to be with” and “kept away from” and “exclusion and banishment from” is from little ol’ apo. Triscuit?!
From “forever separated from” (The Living Bible) and “eternal exile from” (The Message) to “taken away from” (New Life Version) and “shut out from” (NIV), the perfectly normal sense of “at a distance from” veers far from the normal sense of “away.” Passive distance morphs into active expulsion as abnormal appendages curiously appear in English without any Greek antecedent. Triscuit?!
The evidence that adding “away” to “from” is not the prevalent but virtually non-existent translation of apo is conclusive, and any raised-eyebrow and pursed-lip reaction to the contrary is based on these imaginatively interpretive renderings of 2 Thessalonians 1:9, purely eisegetical choices - arbitrary interpretation, not accurate translation.
None of the early formative English Bibles add “away” or anything else to “from” - Wycliffe Bible (1382), Tyndale Bible (1534), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560/1599), and Bishops Bible (1568).
The vast majority (26 by my count on Biblegateway.com and Biblehub.com) of “Literal” Versions and Formal Equivalent Translations, which follow a word-for-word translation philosophy (again, as opposed to Dynamic Equivalence versions that follow a thought-for-thought philosophy), do not add anything to “from,” or in a few instances translate apo in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 to clearly express source (“by” or “when”).
One of these, the American Standard Version of 1901, translates apo prosōpou as the more literal “from the face” while the New American Standard Bible, the 1963 revision of the ASV, marketed as a literal translation, adds “away” to “from the presence.” What changed? Not the meaning of apo, but the translation philosophy. In 1901 it was a translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9; in 1963, an interpretation.
Of the 13 times apo prosōpou (from the presence) is found in the Greek, none in the NIV add “away.” It is only in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 that anything (“shut out”) is added. Why there? The difference is interpretation, not translation.
Apo prosopou:
The reason for not adding “away” to the others is that it is either simply not necessary, or isn’t a good translation. But what’s the excuse in 2 Thessalonians 1:9? Is it necessary? Not unless you’re trying to sway the reader. Is it a good translation? Not by the pattern of translation elsewhere.
In the critical text (the basis of most modern Bibles) of the Greek New Testament, apo, or members of its family (ἀπὸ - 478x, ἀπ - 125x, ἀφ - 42x, ἀπό - 1x), occurs at least 646 times (up to 651 in some editions and 671 in the majority text underlying the King James and New King James). Again, whether it means source or separation, the Greek apo when rendered “from” is almost always left unadorned in translation.
Though at times absorbed in another word or phrase, here’s the breakdown of how apo is translated or understood in at least 639 instances in the KJV (blueletterbible.org):
It is interesting that the only two times apo is rendered using the word away, it is just away, not away from. Many of the instances of of are about hometown origin; for example, “Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 10:38) or “Joseph of Arimathea” (Mark 15:43), of easily interchangeable with from.
The following is the total count of how often “away from” is found in the New Testament of familiar translations:
American Standard Version - 34
English Standard Version - 40
New American Standard Bible - 55
New International Version - 36
Revised Standard Version - 34
Young’s Literal Translation - 29
King James Version - 19
These numbers are not how many times a verb plus apo is translated “away from,” but the total times “away from” is found in each translation. I purposely start with these totals lest anyone misunderstand the point I am about to make (misunderstanding by thinking every “away from” is from apo).
What’s the difference? In the NIV, of the 36 instances of “away from,” 13 do not include apo; only 23 do (3.6% of 646). Of the NASB, 42 of the 55 include apo (6.5% of 646); the ESV, 25 of the 40 (3.9%); the KJV, 13 of 19 (1.9% of 671), for an overall average of 26 (4%). I didn't check the other three versions, but no doubt the differences would be similar.
What does this prove? Not that “away from” is not a “perfectly normal sense” of apo, but that when it comes to translation, apo as part of “away from” is not normal, but novel; not usual, but uncommon. Does 4 out of 100 ( one out of every 25) equal a “rare” rendering? “Rare” is a subjective term, but if 26 out of 646 isn’t rare, how about 1 out of 646 (actually 0 out of 646 if we only count the specific “away from”)?
Before I demonstrate what I mean, let’s observe how apo can certainly mean away from without translators feeling any need to add away. Since we are focused on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, we’ll use 1 & 2 Thessalonians in the NIV as a sample. A member of the apo family is found in these epistles 14 times, 11 as from, and one each as avoid, or reject, and one absorbed in unsettled.
Exactly half of those express separation (highlighted), but only in one did the NIV say away. Why in just that one case? It is because another Greek word, stellesthai meaning withdraw, preceding apo, clearly expresses separation. The “away” is from that Greek verb, not apo. This clue brings us a step closer to discovering why “away from” is a most rare rendering of apo.
All 23 times the NIV says “away from” in which apo is the “from,” there is a Greek verb preceding apo that justifies, even requires, the “away,” making it an actual translation, not an injected interpretation. From the Greek Interlinear on biblehub.com:
Out of 646 occurrences of apo in the Greek underlying the NIV, those are the only texts that say “away from,” and in all 23 “away” is not translated from the preposition apo, but from the verb preceding it. Those verbs, such as torn, take, and turn, are clear words in context expressing away, and thus, separation, not source. In thirteen of the instances, “away” is expressly included in the Interlinear definition of the verb, and implied in all the others, such as in flee, absent, and depart.
So, the translators of the NIV translated apo (found 646 times in the Greek) as “away from” exactly… zero times. Zero. Let that sink in. The perfectly normal sense was not the perfectly normal choice. Not even once. And of the NASB, only one of 646 includes “away” without a preceding verb expressing separation. That lone instance? Yep, 2 Thessalonians 1:9.
As we can see in the 1 & 2 Thessalonians sample above, it would be bringing Triscuit to Greek class to suggest that “from” without “away” must mean source, or that if “from” means separation that “away” must be added to it. Surely you can do better than that!
Again, my contention is that adding “away” to “from,” though a perfectly normal sense of apo, is not a perfectly normal choice, and that doing so, without a deciding verb, is interpretation, not translation. A translator does not need a verb to simply translate apo as “from,” but must have it to add “away” or any other interpretive language.
So, why add “away” in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, especially when it’s the consistent and persistent practice to leave it “from” and let the reader decide? Could it have something to do with the creedal cliché of “eternal separation from God”? Could it be that some translators are (or were) dogmatists determined to influence that decision? I close with evidence that they are (or were) indeed such dogmatists, and were indeed so determined.
Of the 61 versions listed on Biblegateway.com (7 are derivative or updated versions with identical renderings), only nine translate apo as “away from.” I can hear a chorus of objections based on the breakdown of the different renderings in 2 Thessalonians 1:9: “from” - 16; “separated from” - 11; “away from” - 9; “excluded (exclusion) from” - 4; “kept away from” - 3; “shut out from (of)” - 2; “banished from” - 2; “by the,” “eternal exile from,” “far away from,”“isolated from,” “kept away from,” “taken away from,” one each.
Think about how obvious it is that these other “translations” are interpretations. They (mostly verbs) are not the same part of speech as “away” (adverb). They are not synonyms of “away” (apart, off, aside, abroad, distant, elsewhere, etc.). There is no underlying Greek to justify these embellishments. Triscuit?!
The “shut out” of the NIV is certainly not equivalent to “away from.” “Shut out” expresses separation but doesn’t necessitate distance as does “away.” And “away” is passive; “shut out,” active. One can be shut out without being away, and away but not shut out.
Separated, excluded, kept, shut out, banished, kept, and taken indicate an active effort on someone’s part to accomplish and maintain the separation. You’ll search in vain for any of the other 646 to 671 occurrences of apo expressing such an effort.
I repeat what I said earlier. These imaginatively interpretive renderings of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 are purely eisegetical choices - arbitrary interpretation, not accurate translation. Passive distance morphs into active expulsion as abnormal appendages curiously appear in English without any Greek antecedent.
In the next chapter we will discover the Evangelical universe in which the parrot laid the eggs and the eggs hatched the parrots.
As Detective Adrian Monk would say, Here’s what happened. To support their endless dogma, traditionalist translators made one inexplicable exception by taking a possible sense of apo and extrapolating it into an arbitrary interpretation. The context did not support or even suggest this normal sense, and it was clearly not the normal choice.
There’s no other way to explain this solitary departure from their standard practice. There’s no other way to explain removing the Lord when He is so clearly present. There’s no other way to explain this most rare rendering.
Maybe there’s something I’m missing. Maybe I’ve shared something irrelevant. Maybe I made an error in calculations. Maybe. But you get the point, and it’s valid. And vital.
I didn’t bring Triscuit to Greek class. Not this time.
Great work! Thanks for pulling all of this together. Very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThank you, kindly! I appreciate your encouragement.
DeleteA lie is a lie even if it’s in the book of truth. And if it was AI, (artificial insemination, not Artificial Intelligence)it was rape and should be advertised at the least, but will probably not go unpunished.
ReplyDelete