Blog Archives

Are Christians “Peculiar” or “Possessed”? (1 Peter 2:9)

In a conversation that I had recently with a friend, we stumbled across an excellent example of why we ought to use modern translations and not the old King James.  In this case, we were looking at 1 Peter 2:9, and we struck on a significant difference in translation between the King James and the ESV (which I typically use to preach and teach from).  I found that the results were both interesting and useful, dealing with the question: “are we a peculiar people” or “are we a people in Christ’s possession” as we go through life?

 

Initially, I compared the Greek of the Majority Text (from which the KJV is drawn) to the NA27 (from which modern translations are drawn) to see whether the difference in translation lay within a textual variant (please note that while there are variations between ancient manuscripts, they are largely minor linguistic nuances, and none of them place in question any orthodox doctrine that has been held by the church).   Yet, both Greek Texts are identical in terms of this verse.   Here is how the verse is literally translated (nuances of the words in parentheses):

 

“But you are an elect family, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession (could also be a people for preservation), in order that you might proclaim the moral excellence of the one who called (or summoned) you from darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2:9)

 

The language of “a people for possession” is the language that the King James Version translates into “a peculiar people.”  

 

To understand this, we must recognize that the word “peculiar” in English is a word that has changed its use in meaning over the last 400 years since the KJV was translated. Today, we use the word “peculiar” to refer to something that is a little odd or strange—unique or outside of the mainstream.  We might say something like, “This tastes peculiar,” to suggest that there is something disagreeable with the meal that has been set before us—in other words, it tastes odd.

 

But this is a more modern usage of the term and it was not what the KJV translators intended to communicate.  In the 17th century, the term “peculiar” referred to something that was the exclusive property of something or someone else.  When you understand this, the modern translation of “a people for possession” is synonymous with what the 17th century translators understood when they wrote, “a peculiar people.”  It is only in a modern sense that we have tended to misunderstand what the KJV was saying because we no longer typically understand the word “peculiar” in the same way.

 

We do still have remnants of this old usage in modern English when we say things like, “the antiseptic smell that is peculiar to hospitals” or “he speaks in an accent that is peculiar to the Cajun culture of New Orleans.”  Yet, even this use of the word “peculiar” seems to be falling away from common vernacular.

 

For what it is worth, the English word “peculiar” comes from the Latin, peculiaris, which means, “private property.”  This is exactly the sense that Peter is using the term—we are the private property of Him who has delivered us from darkness and into his marvelous light—we are Christ’s exclusive property—a people peculiar to Him.

 

 

 

(Note:  to its credit, the New King James Version translates this as, “his own special people,” which does a better job of capturing the idea in modern vernacular.  The point:  language changes as it is used one generation to the next and being bound to translations that use outdated language can easily lead to misunderstandings of the Biblical text.)

Differences between the KJV and NIV in 2 Corinthians 6:7

A friend emailed me a question about a variant he found between the King James Version and the New International Version of 2 Corinthians 6:7.  As there were no textual variants, the difference is purely interpretive.  Never-the-less, I thought that it was an interesting discussion.  Here was my reply to my friend:

 

This is a good verse for a word study, because as you found, there is quite a difference in translations.  A literal translation of the Greek would look like this:

 

2 Corinthians 6:7

In truth of word, in power of God: through the weapon (hoplon) of the righteousness of the right (dexion) and the left (apisteron).

 

The term hoplon, which I agree with the NIV and translated as “weapon”, can refer to a weapon or a tool of some sort.  Literally, dexion means “right” and apisteron means “left” but both carry military connotations.  Dexion can refer to the weapon of attack that is held in the right hand and apisteron can refer to the defensive weapon that is held in the left hand.

 

Perhaps this is the idea where the KJV got the idea of armor, but that does not seem to work well.  If you make the argument that a shield is a defensive weapon, you can perhaps make the argument that this is military language.  I would argue that this is likely gladitorial language, where two weapons were common.  Certainly in history, by the time Paul was writing this letter, Nero was happily throwing Christians into the ring with lions in Rome.  I expect that the Corinthians would have had familiarity with the Roman games.

 

While I think that the KJV was a very good translation for its day, we have a better understanding of Koine Greek due to archeological evidence within the last century or so.  And even though this variation in translation is not due to a variant reading of the text, there are also many more manuscript variants that we have found that help us to understand the context of the passage better.