Greek for Bible Readers

019

Numerous interesting letters have come to me from readers. Rev. Keith F. Axberg of Lincoln Park, Michigan, asks, “Why have scholars changed Galatians 2:15–21, where our justification was once ‘by the faith of Jesus Christ’ (King James Version) it now ‘by faith in Jesus Christ’ New International Version, Revised Standard Version. et al.)?” He adds: “Paul shows that he knows the difference (in Greek) between the faith of Christ and faith in Christ (cf. Galatians 3:26).”

The Greek phrases involved are dia; pivstew~ ÆIhsouß Cristouß (literally “through faith of Jesus Christ”; Galatians 2:16) and ejn pivstei…thóß touß uiJouß touß qeouß (literally, “by faith…the [faith] of the Son God”; Galatians 2:20). The problem is how to render the genitives “of Jesus Christ” and “of the Son of God.” Some scholars argue that they are subjective genitives, which describe the faith exercised by the subject (and which would therefore mean “the faith of Jesus Christ”), while others argue that they are objective genitives, which express the object of faith (meaning “faith in Jesus Christ”). Greek grammar permits both renderings, and context and usage alone will determine the best translation. We may also note that Paul’s language may be intentionally ambiguous, permitting both understandings but ruling out neither one. As far as Paul’s language in Galatians 3:26 is concerned (dia; thß~ pivstew~ ejn Cristwóß ÆIhsouß, literally, “through the faith in Jesus Christ”), this text implies that Paul distinguished the faith of Christ from faith in Christ, but Galatians 2:16 and 20 remain somewhat ambiguous because they lack the preposition ejn. Thus, as is so often the case, Greek does not resolve our problems; it only limits and defines our options. My own sense is to opt for the subjective genitive in Galatians 2:16 and 20, largely on the basis of Paul’s construction in 3:26, where he clearly meant faith in Christ.

From Joanne M. Spears of Bismarck, North Dakota, come the following three questions. First, “What are the guidelines for choosing English words, and when is consistency needed to show the readers that the same Greek words were used?” As an example, she offers the word a[nqrwpo~, which in some versions of Luke 5:20 is rendered “Man, your sins are forgiven,” and in others “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

There are two things to keep in mind. First, Greek words generally have several meanings, only one of which need be its semantic contribution to any particular passage. Thus, depending on the context a[nqrwpo~ may be rendered “man,” “person,” “human being,” “husband,” “one” and, in direct address, “friend.” Second, words have both denotative and connotative meanings. Connotative meaning concerned with the emotional value attached to words;¹ it is what makes certain four letter words in English so objectionable to many people. In Luke 5:20, some translators may have avoided the term “Man” because of the connotation the word has in English (it seems too impersonal).² Hence, though a[nqrwpo~ is normally rendered “man” or “person,” in this context there is strong justification for translating it as “friend.”

Ms. Spear also asks: “When is it better to translate rather than transliterate?” citing the word sunagwghv as an example (synagoµgeµ). This word can mean either a “meeting” or a “place of meeting.” Since in New Testament times sunagwghv came to denote a place of Jewish religious assembly, it is appropriately rendered “synagogue.” What, however, should we do with such terms as ajpovstolo~ (apostolos, “authoritative representative”), baptivzw (baptizoµ, “I dip/immerse”) and musthvrion (mysteµrion, “secret”)? At least for the word musthvrion a strong case can be made that transliterating the term actually obscures its meaning, since there is nothing mysterious about a musthvrion (the term refers to that which has not been disclosed). On the other hand, tradition and ecumenical concerns make it very difficult not to transliterate baptivzw as baptize (there is simply too much disagreement among Christians as to the proper mode of baptism). Finally, however, perhaps we should give more consideration to translating ajpovstolo~ as “envoy,” “ambassador” or some such expression.

Ms. Spear asks, finally: “Should a translation provide an appendix or a glossary to explain to readers the rules followed in the choice of English words for a single Greek word used in different contexts?” My answer is an emphatic “Yes!” Some Bibles do, in fact, provide such helps for readers. Another option is for the reader to acquire a good dictionary of New Testament words, such as Colin Brown’s excellent 4-volume New Testament Dictionary of New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975–1986).

Finally, Mr. Bill Ickes of Berlin, Pennsylvania, asks: “Is there any explanation for the similarities between Hebrew and Greek alphabets?” Yes indeed, for the Greek alphabet came to Greece from Phoenicia, where the Semitic alphabet was used (see the entry “alphabet” in any major English dictionary). The Greeks adopted, with some modifications, this old Phoenician alphabet along with its Semitic names and with its order of letters. Thus, for example, Greek alpha, beta, gamma and delta correspond to the Hebrew aleph, bet, gimel and dalet. Since the Semitic alphabet did not contain any vowels, the Greeks adapted several consonants to new uses. For instance, the Hebrew aleph, a consonant, became the Greek alpha, a vowel. The last five letters of the Greek alphabet are later additions.