complete verse (Luke 23:50)

Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 23:50:

  • Noongar: (incl. v. 51) “One man stood there, Joseph of Arimathea, a town of Judea. He was a very good, honest man. He was one of the Council and also one of the Pharisees, but he did not agree with their thinking and what they had done. He faithfully awaited the Kingdom of God to come.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “There was a man named Yusuf who was from the town of Arimatea in the land of Yudea. Yusuf was a good man and his behavior was upright, and he was also waiting for the time that God would become King in the world. Even though he was a judge in the Big Religious Meeting of the Yahudi people, but he did not like the command and their decision that said that Yesus must be killed.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “There was a man there called Yusup from the town Arimati, there in the place Yahudiya. He was a good man and his conduct was straight/righteous. He waited for the fulfillment of the things foretold about God’s rule. He was one of the councilors but he had not gone along with their thinking and doing in killing Isa.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “,” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “There was a man named Jose who was from-Arimatea which was a town in the province of Judea. He was a good and righteous person who was waiting for the arrival of the ruling of God. Even though he was one of the leaders of the Jews, he hadn’t agreed-with the plan of his companions and its fulfillment.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “Well, there was a man whose name was Jose. He was a taga Arimatea, which was one of the towns of the Judio. As for that person, he was nice/good and straight/righteous, and one of those who was longing-for (lit. causing-to-arrive) the kingdom of God. He was indeed a member of the Sanedrin, but was not in agreement with the sentence passed on Jesus by those companions of his.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

righteous, righteousness

The Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Latin terms that are translated in English mostly as “righteous” or “righteousness” (see below for a discussion of the English translation) are most commonly expressed with concept of “straightness,” though this may be expressed in a number of ways. (Click or tap here to see the details)

Following is a list of (back-) translations of various languages:

  • Bambara, Southern Bobo Madaré, Chokwe (ululi), Amganad Ifugao, Chol, Eastern Maninkakan, Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona, Batak Toba, Bilua, Tiv: “be straight”
  • Laka: “follow the straight way” or “to straight-straight” (a reduplicated form for emphasis)
  • Sayula Popoluca: “walk straight”
  • Highland Puebla Nahuatl, Kekchí, Muna: “have a straight heart”
  • Kipsigis: “do the truth”
  • Mezquital Otomi: “do according to the truth”
  • Huautla Mazatec: “have truth”
  • Yine: “fulfill what one should do”
  • Indonesian: “be true”
  • Navajo (Dinė): “do just so”
  • Anuak: “do as it should be”
  • Mossi: “have a white stomach” (see also happiness / joy)
  • Paasaal: “white heart” (source: Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
  • (San Mateo del Mar Huave: “completely good” (the translation does not imply sinless perfection)
  • Nuer: “way of right” (“there is a complex concept of “right” vs. ‘left’ in Nuer where ‘right’ indicates that which is masculine, strong, good, and moral, and ‘left’ denotes what is feminine, weak, and sinful (a strictly masculine viewpoint!) The ‘way of right’ is therefore righteousness, but of course women may also attain this way, for the opposition is more classificatory than descriptive.”) (This and all above from Bratcher / Nida except for Bilua: Carl Gross; Tiv: Rob Koops; Muna: René van den Berg)
  • Central Subanen: “wise-good” (source: Robert Brichoux in OPTAT 1988/2, p. 80ff. )
  • Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “live well”
  • Mezquital Otomi: “goodness before the face of God” (source for this and one above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
  • Eastern Huasteca Nahuatl: “the result of heart-straightening” (source: Nida 1947, p. 224)
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “entirely good” (when referred to God), “do good” or “not be a debtor as God sees one” (when referred to people)
  • Carib: “level”
  • Tzotzil: “straight-hearted”
  • Ojitlán Chinantec: “right and straight”
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “walk straight” (source for this and four previous: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22)
  • Makonde: “doing what God wants” (in a context of us doing) and “be good in God’s eyes” (in the context of being made righteous by God) (note that justify / justification is translated as “to be made good in the eyes of God.” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Aari: The Pauline word for “righteous” is generally rendered by “makes one without sin” in the Aari, sometimes “before God” is added for clarity. (Source: Loren Bliese)
  • North Alaskan Inupiatun: “having sin taken away” (Source: Nida 1952, p. 144)
  • Nyamwezi: wa lole: “just” or “someone who follows the law of God” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Venda: “nothing wrong, OK” (Source: J.A. van Roy in The Bible Translator 1972, p. 418ff. )
  • Ekari: maakodo bokouto or “enormous truth” (the same word that is also used for “truth“; bokouto — “enormous” — is being used as an attribute for abstract nouns to denote that they are of God [see also here]; source: Marion Doble in The Bible Translator 1963, p. 37ff. ).
  • Guhu-Samane: pobi or “right” (also: “right (side),” “(legal) right,” “straightness,” “correction,” “south,” “possession,” “pertinence,” “kingdom,” “fame,” “information,” or “speech” — “According to [Guhu-Samane] thinking there is a common core of meaning among all these glosses. Even from an English point of view the first five can be seen to be closely related, simply because of their similarity in English. However, from that point the nuances of meaning are not so apparent. They relate in some such a fashion as this: As one faces the morning sun, south lies to the right hand (as north lies to the left); then at one’s right hand are his possessions and whatever pertains to him; thus, a rich man’s many possessions and scope of power and influence is his kingdom; so, the rich and other important people encounter fame; and all of this spreads as information and forms most of the framework of the people’s speech.”) (Source: Ernest Richert in Notes on Translation 1964, p. 11ff.)
  • Haroti (Hadauti): “blameless in God’s eyes” (source: Vikram Mukka in Christianity Today )
  • German New Testament translation by Berger / Nord (publ. 1999): Gerechtheit, a neologism to differentiate it from the commonly-used Gerechtigkeit which can mean “righteousness” but is more often used in modern German as “fairness” (Berger / Nord especially use Gerechtheit in Letter to the Romans) or Gerechtestun, also a neologism, meaning “righteous deeds” (especially in Letter to the Ephesians)
  • “did what he should” (Eastern Highland Otomi)
  • “a clear man, good [man]” (Mairasi) (source: Enggavoter 2004)

The English translation of righteousness, especially in the New Testament is questioned by Nicholas Wolterstorff (2008, p. 110ff.) (Click or tap here to see the details)

Those who approach the New Testament solely through English translations face a serious linguistic obstacle to apprehending what these writings say about justice. In most English translations, the word “justice” occurs relatively infrequently. It is no surprise, then, that most English-speaking people think the New Testament does not say much about justice; the Bibles they read do not say much about justice. English translations are in this way different from translations into Latin, French, Spanish, German, Dutch — and for all I know, most languages.

The basic issue is well known among translators and commentators. Plato’s Republic, as we all know, is about justice. The Greek noun in Plato’s text that is standardly translated as “justice” is dikaiosunē (δικαιοσύνη); the adjective standardly translated as “just” is dikaios (δίκαιος). This same dik-stem occurs around three hundred times in the New Testament, in a wide variety of grammatical variants.

To the person who comes to English translations of the New Testament fresh from reading and translating classical Greek, it comes as a surprise to discover that though some of those occurrences are translated with grammatical variants on our word “just,” the great bulk of dik-stem words are translated with grammatical variants on our word “right.” The noun, for example, is usually translated as “righteousness,” not as “justice.” In English we have the word “just” and its grammatical variants coming horn the Latin iustitia, and the word “right” and its grammatical variants coining from the Old English recht. Almost all our translators have decided to translate the great bulk of dik-stem words in the New Testament with grammatical variants on the latter — just the opposite of the decision made by most translators of classical Greek.

I will give just two examples of the point. The fourth of the beatitudes of Jesus, as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew, reads, in the New Revised Standard Version, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.” The word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. And the eighth beatitude, in the same translation, reads “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” The Greek word translated as “righteousness” is dikaiosunē. Apparently, the translators were not struck by the oddity of someone being persecuted because he is righteous. My own reading of human affairs is that righteous people are either admired or ignored, not persecuted; people who pursue justice are the ones who get in trouble.

It goes almost without saying that the meaning and connotations of “righteousness” are very different in present-day idiomatic English from those of “justice.” “Righteousness” names primarily if not exclusively a certain trait of personal character. (…) The word in present-day idiomatic English carries a negative connotation. In everyday speech one seldom any more describes someone as righteous; if one does, the suggestion is that he is self-righteous. “Justice,” by contrast, refers to an interpersonal situation; justice is present when persons are related to each other in a certain way. There is, indeed, a long tradition of philosophical and theological discussion on the virtue of justice. But that use of the term has almost dropped out of idiomatic English; we do not often speak any more of a person as just. And in any case, the concept of the virtue of justice presupposes the concept of those social relationships that are just.

So when the New Testament writers speak of dikaiosunē, are they speaking of righteousness or of justice? Is Jesus blessing those who hunger and thirst for righteousness or those who hunger and thirst for justice?

A thought that comes to mind is that the word changed meaning between Plato and the New Testament. Had Jesus’ words been uttered in Plato’s time and place, they would have been understood as blessing those who hunger and thirst for the social condition of justice. In Jesus’ time and place, they would have been understood as blessing (hose who hunger and thirst for righteousness — that is, for personal moral rectitude.

Between the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament there came the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. (…) One of the challenges facing the Septuagint translators was how to catch, in the Greek of their day, the combination of mishpat (מִשְׁפָּט) with tsedeq (צֶ֫דֶק). Tsedeq that we find so often in the Old Testament, standardly translated into English as justice and righteousness. The solution they settled on was to translate tsedeq as dikaiosunē, and to use a term whose home use was in legal situations, namely, krisis (κρίσις), to translate mishpat. Mishpat and tsedeq became krisis and dikaiosunē. For the most part, this is also how they translated the Hebrew words even when they were not explicitly paired with each other: mishpat (justice) becomes krisis, tsedeq (righteousness) becomes dikaiosunē. The pattern is not entirely consistent, however; every now and then, when mishpat is not paired off with tsedeq, it is translated with dikaiosunē or some other dik-stem word (e.g., 1 Kings 3:28, Proverbs 17:23, Isaiah 61:8).

I think the conclusion that those of us who are not specialists in Hellenistic Greek should draw from this somewhat bewildering array of data is that, in the linguistic circles of the New Testament writers, dikaiosunē did not refer definitively either to the character trait of righteousness (shorn of its negative connotations) or to the social condition of justice, but was ambiguous as between those two. If dikaiosunē had referred decisively in Hellenistic Greek to righteousness rather than to justice, why would the Septuagint translators sometimes use it to translate mishpat, why would Catholic translators [into the 1980s] usually translate it as “justice,” and why would all English translators sometimes translate it as “justice”? (All earlier Latin-based Catholic translations, the New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible, both of which appeared in the early 1970s have most occurrences of dik-stem words translated with variants on “just.” In subsequent revisions of the New American Bible, and in the New Jerusalem Bible, these translations have been altered to translations along the lines of righteousness. Other translations that use a form of justice or “doing right / rightness” include the British New English Bible [1970] and Revised English Bible [1989] and some newer translations such as by Hart [2017], Ruden [2021] or McKnight [2023]).

Conversely, if it referred decisively to justice, why would the Septuagint translators usually not use it to translate mishpat, and why would almost all translators sometimes translate it as “righteousness”? Context will have to determine whether, in a given case, it is best translated as “justice” or as “righteousness” — or as something else instead; and if context does not determine, then it would be best, if possible, to preserve the ambiguity and use some such ambiguous expression as “what is right” or “the right thing.”

Let me make one final observation about translation. When one takes in hand a list of all the occurrences of dik-stem words in the Greek New Testament, and then opens up almost any English translation of the New Testament and reads in one sitting all the translations of these words, a certain pattern emerges: unless the notion of legal judgment is so prominent in the context as virtually to force a translation in terms of justice, the translators will prefer to speak of righteousness.

See also respectable, righteous, righteous (person), devout, and She is more in the right(eous) than I.

Scriptures Plain & Simple (Luke 23:50-56)

Barclay Newman, a translator on the teams for both the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version, translated passages of the New Testament into English and published them in 2014, “in a publication brief enough to be non-threatening, yet long enough to be taken seriously, and interesting enough to appeal to believers and un-believers alike.” The following is the translation of Luke 23:50-56:

Joseph Arimathea was honest and earnest,
       eagerly awaiting the advent of the Ultimate Kingdom.
Although he was a member of the council,
       he had disagreed with their decision to execute Jesus.

Joseph approached Pilate, requesting the body of Jesus.
He removed it from the cross, and wrapped it in a linen cloth,
       before placing it in a tomb carved from solid rock —
              a pristine tomb, as yet undefiled by death.

Friday had arrived — the Sabbath would commence at sunset.
Those women who had come from Galilee
now followed Joseph and watched
       as the body was placed in the tomb.
They wanted to go at once and prepare burial spices,
       but their religion required they rest on the Sabbath.

Translation commentary on Luke 23:50 – 23:53

Exegesis:

These verses comprise a long elaborate sentence, introduced by kai idou (‘and behold,’ cf. on 1.20). The structure of this sentence is as follows: the subject anēr onomati Iōsēph is followed by three appositions bouleutēs huparchōn, anēr agathos kai dikaios and apo Arimathaias poleōs tōn Ioudaiōn which serve to identify him as to his position, his moral character and his local origin, and by the relative clause hos prosedecheto tēn basileian tou theou which identifies him as to his religious conviction. Between the second and third apposition a parenthetical clause is inserted (houtos … autōn) in order to explain his relationship with the trial of Jesus. At the beginning of v. 52 the main clause begins, the subject being resumed by the demonstrative pronoun houtos; it consists of three co-ordinate verbs ētēsato, enetulixen and ethēken, the first two being preceded by a subordinate participle (proselthōn and kathelōn). In each case participle and main verb denote closely connected acts. Finally mnēma is more precisely defined by the closing relative clause hou … keimenos. For details cf. subsequent notes on each verse.

(V. 50) bouleutēs huparchōn lit. ‘being a council member,’ i.e. a member of the Sanhedrin, cf. on 22.66. For huparchō cf. on 7.25. Here huparchōn is virtually redundant. bouleutēs.

anēr agathos kai dikaios ‘a good and just man,’ used in a moral sense, and explained by what follows.

(V. 51) houtos ouk ēn sugkatatetheimenos tē boulē kai tē praxei autōn ‘this man had not agreed with their plan and their action,’ parenthesis serving to explain how he, a member of the Sanhedrin, in the present situation with regard to Jesus could be called good and just. The periphrastic pluperfect has no special meaning. autōn refers to the members of the Sanhedrin, though they are not mentioned in the preceding clauses. boulē, cf. on 7.30.

sugkatatithemai, with dative, ‘to agree with,’ ‘to consent to,’ ‘to vote for.’

boulē here ‘plan,’ ‘purpose,’ ‘policy.’

praxis ‘action,’ ‘act.’

apo Arimathaias poleōs tōn Ioudaiōn lit. ‘from Arimathea a town of the Jews,’ best understood as identifying him as a native, not an inhabitant, of Arimathea. tōn Ioudaiōn has the name of the people instead of that of the country.

hos prosedecheto tēn basilean tou theou ‘who expected the (coming of the) kingdom of God.’ For a similar use of prosdechomai cf. on 2.25, 38. For the coming of the kingdom of God cf. on 17.20.

(V. 52) ētēsato to sōma tou Iēsou ‘(he) asked for the body of Jesus.’ sōma means here ‘(dead) body,’ ‘corpse.’

(V. 53) kai kathelōn enetulixen auto sindoni ‘and after taking it down (from the cross) he wrapped it in a linen cloth.’ auto, referring to sōma ‘corpse,’ goes with both verbs.

entulissō ‘to wrap,’ ‘to wrap up.’

sindōn ‘linen,’ ‘linen cloth,’ ‘linen sheet.’

ethēken auton en mnēmati laxeutō ‘he laid him in a rock-hewn tomb.’ Note auton ‘him,’ referring to a person, i.e. Jesus, after auto ‘it’ in the preceding clause.

laxeutos ‘hewn in the rock.’

hou ouk ēn oudeis oupō keimenos ‘where no one had yet been laid.’ The accumulation of the negations strengthens the negative aspect of the clause. Periphrastic ēn keimenos is to be rendered as a pluperfect, not as an imperfect.

Translation:

The main clause, vv. 52f, can usually be rendered as two or more separate sentences; the real difficulty is in the introductory clauses, vv. 50f, because of the parenthesis in v. 51. Some translators change the syntactic structure rather radically, redistributing the clauses and phrases according to a clearer, more logical sequence, cf. e.g. Good News Translation. This has the drawback of suggesting relationships which Luke may not have had in mind. Most translators, therefore, think it wiser to restrict themselves to subdividing vv. 50f into two or more sentences, if necessary elucidating the relationships, e.g. ‘Now there was a man called Joseph, a member of the (Jewish) council, a good and just man, who had (or, He was a good and just man; as such he had) not agreed with their … deed. He came from the Jewish town of A. He expected the kingdom of God. This man (or, Joseph) went to Pilate…,’ cf. e.g. New English Bible, Bible de Jérusalem; also Marathi (which puts the locative apposition directly behind the name, as does Good News Translation). It may be necessary to transpose part of the main clause to the first sentence, e.g. ‘Look, a man who was called Joseph, a member of the council, a good and upright man, went to Pilate. He had not agreed with … what they did. He was a man from A., … He was expecting the kingdom of God. Well, he went to Pilate, he asked…’ (Sranan Tongo).

(V. 50) From the Jewish town of Arimathea, or, ‘native from A., a town in the region Judea (Bahasa Indonesia RC, Balinese), or, in the Jewish country.’ For the force of the preposition from see on “of Cyrene” in v. 26, for town cf. on “city” in 1.26.

A member of the council, or, ‘a man of the (or, elder in their) council’ (cf. Balinese, Zarma), ‘one of the men who sat in council’ (cf. Tae’); or a derivation of the word for council, e.g. ‘one of the speechmakers/discussers’ (Ekari). For council see on 22.66; the term may have to be specified, cf. “Jewish council” (Phillips).

Righteous, cf. references on 1.6.

(V. 51) Who had not consented to their purpose and deed, or, ‘who had not approved of what they had decided and what they had done (cf. Sranan Tongo), or, what the other members had designed and done,’ or, ‘he had not agreed with the other men about the things they had planned and done.’ In Ekari consented, or, ‘agreed’ is rendered by the phrase ‘one thought decided.’

He was looking for, or, ‘expecting,’ see on 2.25.

The kingdom of God, or, ‘the day to come that God rules’ (San Miguel El Grande Mixtec), ‘the time when the hour of God’s governing would arrive’ (Tzeltal).

(V. 52) Went to. In this context an honorific term may be preferable or obligatory, e.g. ‘waited upon’ (Balinese, cf. also “went into the presence of”, Good News Translation).

Asked for. In some cases better in direct discourse, ‘said, “Please, give me the body of Jesus” .’

Body, or, ‘corpse,’ ‘dead body,’ as is obligatory in several languages.

(V. 53) He took it down. A locative specification may be preferable, and/or an indication that Joseph probably was not the direct agent, e.g. ‘he had it taken down (or, caused people to lower it) from the cross.’

A linen shroud, or, ‘a grave cloth’; or less specifically, ‘a (good, or, linen) cloth.’

Laid him. In several languages the use of a personal pronoun would suggest a reference to a living person, and therefore one has to neglect the difference and use “it”, or a similar non-personal reference.

A rock-hewn tomb, or, ‘a tomb hewn (or, cut/dug) out of a rock (or, a rock cliff),’ ‘a stone-hole grave’ (Sranan Tongo). If tomb has to be described, one may say here, ‘hole/cave to place dead people in,’ or simply ‘hole/cave,’ the function being sufficiently clear from the context.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.