A New Literal Translation
Ben Witherington has posted a few examples of a translation that he is working on. Here is one example.
Second, using 'faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ'' is a nice way to reflect the ambiguity in the Greek.
Third, 'intended/set forth' is an excellent improvement and really demonstrates what is obvious in Greek over and over, the sense of a placement in space and a placement in time, both together in one word. There is so often this time/space continuum in Greek. This is my favourite improvement, because now it makes sense that Christ was intended in the past and a proof of God's righteousness in the present time. That sense of time comes out.
'Liberation' and 'tolerance' are two words which give the language a contemporary feel.
The only detail missing is the mercy-seat. Hmmm. Maybe 'means of propitiation/mercy-seat.'
- Romans 3.22-26: But the righteousness of God through the faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to all those believing, for there is not a differentiation/ distinction, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, being righteous freely of his grace through the liberation which is in Christ Jesus whom God intended/set forth publicly as a means of propitiation through [his] faithfulness, in his blood as a proof/indication of his righteousness through the overlooking of previously commited sins, in the tolerance of God for a proof of his righteousness in the present time, unto his being righteous and making righteous those from the faith/faithfulness of Jesus.
Second, using 'faith/faithfulness of Jesus Christ'' is a nice way to reflect the ambiguity in the Greek.
Third, 'intended/set forth' is an excellent improvement and really demonstrates what is obvious in Greek over and over, the sense of a placement in space and a placement in time, both together in one word. There is so often this time/space continuum in Greek. This is my favourite improvement, because now it makes sense that Christ was intended in the past and a proof of God's righteousness in the present time. That sense of time comes out.
'Liberation' and 'tolerance' are two words which give the language a contemporary feel.
The only detail missing is the mercy-seat. Hmmm. Maybe 'means of propitiation/mercy-seat.'
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 9:12 PM
13 Comments:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Suzanne.
It is wonderful what is available to those not proficient in NT Greek or OT Hebrew/Aramaic.
Thought your thoughts on it were interesting as well. Sometimes I wonder why there had to be a change of translation of the same word even near (in the same sentence?) to that word used in the immediate context. Must be for stylistic purposes. Though sometimes a word may have a different feel or nuance to it when used in a different manner, even if in the same passage.
Sorry, I was not more clear. Mostly in English verse 26 is like this.
"It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
But 'righteousness' is the same root as 'just' and 'justifier'. So it might be confusing. People might think that being 'just' and being 'righteous' are two different things, but they are the same in Greek. So why not lose the Latin root 'just' Or should we because of modern jurisprudence lose the older 'righteousness'?
Some people don't like Latin root words because it represents the domination of the more hierarchical church over the less hierarchical. How is that for an explanation!
I don't know. I can see that I might be alone in my enthusiasm. Oh well.
I just learned a lot about the concept of propitiation. Thanks for that.
Do you really think an English translation that isn't for theologians should have the word 'propitiation' in it? Wouldn't it be better just to translated it as something like "satisfaction of wrath"?
I think there's a better reason to prefer Germanic roots to Latinate roots. Latinate roots tend to be more specialized and less commonly used by ordinary people. If you look at ordinary conversation of the average person, you'll find that they tend to use words with Germanic roots if there's a choice. People don't always write as they talk, and Latinate words tend to crop up more in writing, and those who spend a lot of time writing about intellectual matters tend to use Latinate words even more, even in conversation. When a more specific or technical nuance is necessary, we probably should turn to a Latinate word if it expresses it better, but ideally we should seek to avoid that if a Germanic root word captures it well. I think there should always be a preference for Germanic roots, all other things being equal (which is often not the case, however). I say this without confidence that there are Germanic roots for 'righteous'. I suspect that that's its origin, but I just don't know and don't want to bother logging in to my university to access the OED to find out.
This is one reason I disagree with your association of 'liberation' with a contemporary feel. I think it sounds old-fashioned and upper crust. I much prefer 'freedom'. The word 'tolerance' is also almost always worth avoiding, because so many people understand it differently. Classically it meant putting up with things you don't like. Nowadays it means accepting everything as good no matter what (except intolerance, which shouldn't be tolerated). Many who have spent a lot of time in the current university setting will be utterly confused about this word.
I notice one thing about his translation of "faith/faithfulness". Isn't it interesting that he doesn't do that when he speaks of Christ's own faithfulness? It's a semantically ambiguous word, but he thinks the context settles it. The reason he doesn't use 'faith' there is because some people will read it as saying that it's referring to both Christ's faithfulness and Christ's faith. If it's not, then in English it's best to leave out the one that contextually it couldn't mean. This is parallel to the point Packer makes about terms that can semantically include a female group but contextually do not (such as in a case where he says elders are referred to as those having wives, which means we're talking about men; if you translated inclusively there, then you'd be indicating that the text intends to refer to women, and if it doesn't then you've conveyed the wrong impression). I know that's not the subject of this post, but I found it interesting that Witherington recognizes the principle that Packer is relying on that you didn't seem too fond of.
I should clarify one thing. I'm talking about the earlier reference to Christ's faithfulness in the context of propitiation, not the later one in the last line, where does give the ambiguous translation.
You both have articulated excellent arguments first for judicial language and next for Germanic vs Latinate roots. I am persuaded in both directions at once. I hope Ben reads this discussion.
And appeasement or satisfaction of wrath do communicate more than propitiation. So I really hope Ben reads these comments of yours. They are great and very much in the scope of the post and much more intereseting than the post, I might add.
Suzanne- you write:
The only detail missing is the mercy-seat. Hmmm. Maybe 'means of propitiation/mercy-seat.'
"Propitiation" is never an appropriate rendering as it calls to mind the satisfaction of an angry god by an act of sacrifice. "Expiation" is far superior as it calls to mind the "carrying off" of the offensive act. "hilasterion" and that word group in Greek means "expiate", not "propitiate" and is the word translated "seat of mercy" in 1 John and in the LXX.
I think we make too much of the difference between expiate and propitiate in English. In French the mercy seat is the 'propitiatoire' and in Portuguese it is 'expiator' or something related. That is, these two words have taken on in English a contrasting meaning and we make too much of the Greek to argue that it is one and not the other.
Making the difference between these two is a matter of interpretation not translation. There should be one neutral word that one could take either way.
I disagree. It isn't simply a matter of interpretation at all - but inherent in the words themselves (the hilasterion group) is the idea of expiation- not propitiation (in English- let the French and Portugese work out their own renderings). So, when translators use "propitiation" they are not simply misinterpreting the word- they are mistranslating it.
It is great to hear so many well-defended but contrasting opinions.
This is an interesting discussion, but there are some errors in it. In fact the 'hilaskesthai' word group does regularly convey the sense of propitation, including in the LXX-- Ex. 32.14-19; Dan. 9.16-19). Nor is there any problem with the idea of God being angry, in particular a righteous and holy God being angry about sin, which destroys the relationship between God and human beings. Furthermore, sin is not expiated (i.e. we are not cleansed) if atonement is not made and God's wrath against sin is not propitiated. This was the normal ancient and Jewish concept in regard to sacrifice. This is why the blood was applied to the horns of the altar-- the point of contact with God. The issue as Paul raises it in Romans 3 is how can God be both righteous and the one who sets right human beings. God can always be more than fair, and indeed he is when he is gracious, but God cannot be other than fair, just, righteous, for even God's love is a holy love. And one more point. If Jesus' death was not absolutely necessary to atone for sins, and meet God's righteous demands in regard to dealing with sin, then God is in no sense a loving God. What sort of God would put his only begotten Son through death on the cross unless it was both the necessary and sufficient means by which the sins of the world could be atoned for? We really need to stop thinking of God's grace and love as something that cancels out or trumps God's righteousness or righteous demands for justice. What did the prophets tell us about what God requires of us--- that we must both do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with our God. The NT says nothing different from this.
Ben W.
Jim, the only people who understand "propitiation" and "expiation" as having contrasting meanings are theologians, who of course already know the arguments about the verse in question. No one else uses these words in English. So it is worth worrying which of these words to use only in a translation whose target audience is theologians - and who shouldn't really need a translation at all. For every other mortal audience, it is best to avoid both of these words, because neither of them is clearly understood.
May I just point out that anyone who studies the Bible (and of course that should be every Christian) is by definition a 'theologian'.
As such I am a theologian because I study the Bible and actually I understand propitiation and expiation.
I have never been to seminary or Bible College. I am an ordinary Christian who has done ordinary bible study.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home