We find the story of the widow’s mite in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4. In both passages (which are nearly identical), Jesus makes the point that the widow’s gift to the Temple treasury was very costly to her, because it represented everything she had. But the challenge for the translator is to determine how best to translate the technical terms for the coins she dropped into the box.
The Greek text in Mark 12:42 says that she dropped in “two lepta, which is a kodrantes.” So if we simply translate it that way in English, everything is clear, right? Sure, if the reader has an intuitive sense of the value of two lepta! And Mark even gives us a clue by telling us that two lepta (Jewish coins) are equal to a kodrantes (a Roman coin). But most of us would still have to reach for a Bible dictionary to make sense of those terms. So translators have resorted to numerous solutions.
KJV: two mites, which make a farthing
RSV: two copper coins, which make a penny
NASB: two small copper coins, which amount to a cent (with a footnote)
NIV: two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny (with a footnote)
ESV: two small copper coins, which make a penny (with a footnote)
HCSB: two tiny coins worth very little (with a footnote)
NLT: two small coins (with a footnote)
Which translation is correct? I would argue that the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, and ESV communicate the wrong message. After all, a penny has very little value in our current economy. But in the first century, a kodrantes was equal to 1/64 of a denarius, and a denarius was considered fair pay for a day’s wage. If today’s wage for a laborer in the USA is $15 per hour, that comes to $120 for an 8-hour day. At this rate, 1/64 of a day’s wage is $1.88. Round it up to $2.00, and we could say that the widow dropped two dollar-coins into the collection box. That feels very different from “two coins worth only a fraction of a penny.”
It’s for that reason that the NLT simply says “two small coins” [footnote: Greek two lepta, which is a kodrantes (i.e., a quadrans)]. After all, the point of Jesus’ teaching was that the widow gave everything she had. And if her two small coins were worth a couple of dollars in our economy, let’s not give the impression that she had only two pennies.
I’ve never been concerned about how much the widow gave, the point is that she gave all she had even though she was poor. Isn’t it demonstrating her faith and obedience and sacrificial giving? I rather think the challenge for the reader is not to work out how much she gave but to imitate her example of sacrificial giving.
Excellent post this really gives a lot of value to what the NLT has to offer in some of the things that Jesus (and the rest of the bible) is talking about.
I think you mis-estimate. Now, it is really difficult to compare prices and purchasing power, especially across long ages… there really is no good answer.
But, the denarius was the wage of an agricultural day laborer — in the US, and around most of the world, that is not $15/hour. Wages are often less than $1/hour. But they worked long days… while there was light, they worked. All of life was work, except the Sabbath.
All this is to say that 1/64th of the pay for a day’s labor in an agricultural society would probably be more like two dimes.
(Now, a better way might be to use gold or grain as a unit of measure… at which point we might be above your $2… this is why I say this question is really impossible to answer.)
But, it’s not that relevant to the meaning of the parable, the main point was that she was poor and gave all.
Finally, on translation, the best way to do it would be the most precise — just say, “two lepta, which is a kodrantes” and leave an explanation in a footnote. Far better to let the word of God speak, and let preachers explain. The preached word is what brings faith. Translators should avoid injecting their own biases into the text.
David,
I agree with you that it’s almost impossible to make a useful economic comparison between the purchasing power of two lepta in first-century Israel with our economy today. And I also agree that the exact value of the widow’s gift is not central to the point Jesus was trying to make.
But I must take issue with your suggestion that the biblical text must be explained by a preacher. When the text is read by an individual apart from a preaching context, it should be as clear as possible. Certainly God intended for the biblical text to be understood by the average reader. As William Tyndale said to a learned clergyman back in the early 16th century, “Before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!”
It is the preached word of God that brings faith (Romans 10). Preaching is integral to the church; reading by an average person does not grasp the richness of what is there.
I am not arguing that the text should be unclear — I am arguing that it should be more accurate. Let the text of the Scripture be tough, and reveal the stark idioms of God, and let preachers and footnotes explain. Far better to have an accurate rendering of the text, even if it is a little wooden, than one that smacks of the translators biased interpretation.
Give a literal translation. That is your job. Anything less makes you more important than God’s word. God will get his point across; the Holy Spirit motivates some to make the effort — those whom God will save.
Don’t explain the text, rather reveal it, in all its chunky Hebraic and Greek glory… we all do better when the text is tougher, but we gain a sense of the richness when it is explained to us by those who have studied it.
Part of the challenge in translating the bilbical text is to determine when a literal translation provides an accurate rendering of the meaning and when it clouds the meaning. You refer, David, to the biblical text “in all its chunky Hebraic and Greek glory.” But the original Hebrew and Greek texts were not chunky for the most part. It’s only when the Hebrew and Greek syntax is translated literally into English that it sounds chunky to our ears. The translators of the NLT hold the view that the message should be as easy to read and understand in English as it was for the original Hebrew and Greek readers.
But there is also a place for literal translations. And thankfully, there are many good ones available to us.
Your explanation, Mark, is fair and balanced. Most sources I’ve found agree that a denarius is a fair day’s wage, and a kodrantes as 1/64th of that value. I searched your blog while searching for a modern equivalent value for the “widow’s mite.” William L. Lane’s NICNT commentary on Mark (fn 84, pg 442) isn’t helpful for this comparison because it describes the Roman coin, lepta, in terms of 1/400th part of a Jewish shekel, “or roughly 1/8 of a cent,” which I assume is an American value, like our penny. The problem is that I don’t know the value of a shekel, let alone the lepta. If the lepta reflects 1/8th of a penny, then $2 is incredibly high. The association with the Roman denarius is probably more accurate. FYI, I used $100 per day take home pay, which turns out to value the kodrantes at $1.54. Bottom line, these coins are not easily translatable. I do think it preferable, however, to include in the translation something about the kodrantes, which is how I understand the HCSB reads. “Two small coins worth very little” would convey this idea.
Thank you Mark for this wonderful post. This Bible passage was one of the first I learned during Sunday school when I was a child. I was always confused when some translations refered to the coins as “pennies.” For years I actually thought it the widow gave two cents. If that was all she really had, then she was really a homeless widow. I like the NLT’s “two small coins” because no value is assigned. The fact that the coins are described as “small” alerts the reader that they were not very valuable, but certainly more that two cents. This is another example of why the NLT is quickly becoming my translation of choice.