So the kids put on a Christmas play at church this past Sunday and I was struck by the tacking on of “who believe” to the standard way I’ve always heard it in one of the songs in the play.
These translations seem wildly different to me. So, which is it?
Either way I’m not sure why the “who believe” needed to be added.
I love this verse. I long for the day when it is recognized for what I perceive as it’s obvious universal implications.
`Glory in the highest to God, and upon earth peace, among men–good will.’ (Luke 2:14 YLT)
Some translators render this as “peace among men of good will.” As for v. 10, I’m not sure how you could make that work for ECT without adding the phrase “who believe.”
I’m no Greek scholar, so I can’t say whether v. 14 is equally valid translated one way or the other. I’m guessing the latter translation is preferred by people who “know” that ECT is the truth and must find a way to limit the set of people to whom the peace on earth will apply.
I’d say that an ECT reading is a viable reading of that verse. The Greek contains a definite article, so it reads: “…I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all the people.” The Calvinists insist that this indicates God’s people – the elect (it must be in the Greek somewhere). But it could retain its universal scope and still be compatible with an Arminian-ECT. That it’s speaking about unlimited atonement would be the Arminian position, I suspect. I’m sure there is an elaborate explanation somewhere.
My daughter and I were walking through the park, going to view our little town’s Christmas parade. We passed a float with a choir sining “Joy to the World”. And I said to her, “I suppose people who believe in Hell should change that to sing 'Joy to Some People”. She laughed and said, “Wow, that’s so true.”
I understand that the completely different statements in Luke 2:14 are not due to alternative translations from one Greek source but are down to correct translations from two different Greek manuscripts.
Interesting article - thanks for posting.
Brings up the whole inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God question I suppose.
Funny that even with Joy to the World there is massive uncertainty about who really should be joyful.
Without certainty one is left with fear and anxiety - not exactly something to get real excited about.
Someone on another thread quoted the third verse of Joy to the World - which is usually omitted:-
… which strengthens the universalist leaning of the hymn no end. That verse had been crossed out of our choir copies by one of my predecessors. I have reinstated it!
Pilgrim is correct about the problem being a variant tradition in the manuscripts, each variant of which has some impressive (but different) text-critical credentials.
I’m inclined on text-crit principles to go with “among men of His delight”. The Greek preceding that is not especially easy to suss out either, although the translation options still tend to depend on what word is original at the end.
I wrote a Christmas sermon/article on it last year for the Cadre.
christiancadre.blogspot.com/2010 … light.html
It may be of some help. 
(I know that variant tends on the face of it to support something like Calvinist soteriology about the elect; but I try not to let my soteriological beliefs dictate that kind of estimation, even if I think they’re correctly grounded in an overall systematic theology otherwise.)
Incidentally, I think it’s kind of cool that the article linked by Paidion not only mentions the word there actually being heavenly “armies” (as I do in my article), but also agrees with me about the birth being in September. Although I notice he doesn’t mention the Feast of Tabernacles linkage, which would place it more like Sept 29 a couple of years earlier than his date. The sun would still be close to Virgo, I think, later in Sept, although technically it leaves that constellation on or around the 22nd. (Not that I hang anything on his reference to RevJohn’s imagery about the woman clothed in the sun giving birth, interesting though that attempt is.)
Interesting. So let’s assume “among men of his delight” is correct, does it then follow that there HAS to be some men NOT of his delight?
If I say about my children, “these are the children of my delight” I simply could mean that I delight in all my children.
It seems like in the end either translation could mean the same thing and be good news for every single person but maybe I’m missing the point.
Here is what is considered by most experts to have been the original text. I have used dashes so that the English words line up with the Greek:
δοξα εν υψιστοις θεω —και —επι —γης —ειρηνη εν ανθρωποις ευδοκιας
glory in highest to God and upon earth peace in— people—— of good will
The final word “ευδοκιας” is in the genitive case. That means it is to be translated not as “good will” but “of good will”.
Another interesting point is that the New Testament writers used “ειρηνη” (peace) to express the Hebrew “shalom”. The Hebrew word has a much wider meaning than “peace”; it includes peace, but also good health, prosperity, safety, and wholeness. In one word, it could probably be best expressed as “well-being”.
My translation of the words of the angels recorded in Luke 2:14 would be:
May the the highest glory go to God, and upon earth well being among people of good will.
True, but as far as I can tell it’s also in singular third-person form, not plural. So the good will (or more literally good praise, thus “delight” in the sense of someone rejoicing about something or someone else) cannot be the people’s. It would be “of his good praise”, thus “among people of his good praise.”
There’s only one person being spoken of singly in that declaration, and that’s God. So it’s peace among people of God’s good praise, i.e. peace among people God gladly praises (or delights in).
Do you have any reference indicating {eudokias} is single third-person genitive (of their) instead of single first-person genitive (of his)?
Jason, I don’t understand what you are saying at all.
“ευδοκια” is a noun and “ευδοκιας” is the genitive singular form of that noun.
We speak of verbs being in the first, second, or third person — not nouns.
Greek grammatical rules do not require “ευδοκιας” to agree in number with the noun “ανθρωποις” since it is not an adjectival modifier, but another noun. It is a singular noun because it means “good will”, not “good wills”.
An analogous example can be found in Luke 7:31 “ανθρωπους της γενεας ταυτης” (people of this generation)
“ανθρωπους” is an accusative plural masculine noun and “γενεας” is a genitive singular feminine noun. The nouns do not agree in number, gender, or case. But “ταυτης” (this) is an adjective, and must agree in number, gender, and case with the noun “γενεας” which it modifies, and it does. This adjective (like the noun it modifies) is also genitive case, singular in number, and feminine in gender.
Sounds like a perfectly good rebuttal to me! 
I suppose a further rebuttal would be that if it had been meant to read “of his good will”, an {autou} would have had to be included?