Believers in Romans 2?

I have joined the team of writers at Credo blog which will also feature Credo, an on-line magazine, beginning in October. Here is my first entry at Credo. "Gentiles in Paul's Argument in Romans 2: Their Praise is not from Man but from God."

That Romans 2 should figure prominently within disagreements among contemporary Christian scholars about how to understand Paul’s reasoning concerning the gospel in relation to the law of Moses is no surprise, for this chapter has always posed exegetical difficulties, especially since the Reformation. Two contrasting interpretations of the passage dominate discussions. The one that dominated until the past twenty years is that Paul, in portions if not the whole of Romans 2, argues against his presumptuous and censorious but rhetorical or imaginary Jewish dialog partner by positing equally imaginary Gentiles whose salvation by keeping the law is only theoretical because sin renders every human helpless and incapable of doing good. The second interpretation, which has gained much greater acceptance in recent years, is that Paul is depicting Christians generally in 2:7 and 10 but particularly Christian Gentiles in 2:12ff and 2:25-29, by their conduct, the obedience of faith, in contrast to others whose evil deeds manifest unbelief. 

Read more.

English Translations Sanitize the Bible And Muddle Biting Imagery

When I first began to translate the Greek New Testament as a student, I was puzzled why English translations always seemed to translate the Greek word ἡ ἀκροβυστία with “the uncircumcised” when the word actually means “the foreskin” and when there is a Greek word that actually does mean “the uncircumcised.” The Greek word is ἀπερίτμητος, an adjective which, when used with the article, ἡ ἀπερίτμητος, may function as a noun. Paul never uses the adjective ἀπερίτμητος. In fact, it occurs only one time in the whole New Testament. It occurs in Stephen’s speech when he, like the prophets earlier, indicts Israel for “uncircumcised hearts and ears” (Acts 7:51).

The word that Paul consistently uses when he juxtaposes Jews as “the circumcised” (ἡ περιτομή) with Gentiles who are not circumcised, is not ἡ ἀπερίτμητος, “the uncircumcised,” a term used repeatedly in the LXX to depict Israel. Rather, Paul’s word of choice seems to be the contemptuous, even scornful term by which Jews of his day commonly referred to Gentiles. Paul uses ἡ ἀκροβυστία, “the foreskin,” the term of contempt, not to express scorn or disdain, but rather to feature the grace of God in the gospel which saves not only Jews who are circumcised, but also Gentiles who are “the foreskin,” a sure manifestation that they stand outside the covenant.

That English translators mollify the unpleasantry is understandable. However, lost is something of the richness and sting that Paul’s imagery evokes for Gentles as intended by Jews, which is captured well in the accusation put to Peter when he returned from being with Cornelius, “You went to men who have the foreskin and you ate with them” (εἰση̂λθες πρὸς ἄνδρας ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντας καὶ συνέφαγες αὐτοι̂ς; Acts 11:2). Paul's objective is not to be vulgar as course jokers are. His point is not even to be offensive to Gentiles, as he undoubtedly was as a Pharisee. Rather, as a Jew who formerly held contempt for the Gentiles as "the foreskin," now as Christ's apostle to the Gentiles, he purposely tweaks the sensibilities of fellow Jews who are loath to accept Gentiles believers as Abraham's seed.

Other portions within Paul’s letters that English translations tend to soften are Galatians 5:11 and Philippians 3:8.

χάρις ἀντὶ χάριτος in John 1:16

χάρις ἀντὶ χάριτος in John 1:16; grace instead of grace in John 1:16.

A verse in John's Gospel that entails a puzzling expression is John 1:16. See below the highlighted portion in the Greek and in the English translations.

John 1:16--ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος·

KJV--And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

NASB--For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.

NIV--From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

ESV--And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.

TNIV--Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.

At issue is the force of the preposition ἀντί. As the translations indicate, some want to take ἀντί with senses that the preposition does not elsewhere convey. Thus, so many translations are quite improbable.

I was surprised, however, when I read the TNIV on John 1:16. It seems that this translation comes the closest to getting the preposition correct. Of the several commentaries that I have in my library, it seems to me that one alone gets the passage right. It is D. A. Carson's The Gospel according to John. As Carson observes, "The most convincing view takes anti in one of its most common uses (and by far the most common in the LXX) to mean 'instead of': from Christ's fulness we have all received grace instead of grace" (132).

How should we understand this? Carson offers the following: "On the face of it, then, it appears that the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ is what replaces the law; the law itself is understood to be an earlier display of grace."

I think that Carson gets it right.

χωρὶς in Romans 3:28

χωρὶς in Romans 3:28; apart from in Romans 3:28

I would like some insight from readers concerning use of the Greek word choris (χωρίς) in Romans 3:28. At the various levels of my learning of Greek grammars and grammarians have reinforced the point that in the Greek New Testament χωρίς normally follows the word to which it is grammatically attached. Once in the GNT choris (χωρίς) follows the word it governs (Hebrews 12:14). Also, in the New Testament, choris (χωρίς) functions principally as an improper preposition. A. T. Robertson observes, "In the N.T. we have only one pure adverbial use (Jo. 20:7), while as a preposition with the ablative we find it 40 times" (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 648). 

My question concerns the placement and use of choris (χωρίς) in Romans 3:28 because of the way English translations connect the improper prepositional phrase (choris ergon nomou; χωρίς ἔργων νόμου) to the verb dikaiousthai (δικαιοῦσθαι), essentially rendering choris (χωρίς) as an adverb, rather than maintaining the syntactical connection that the Greek text itself actually shows, anthropon choris (ἄνθρωπον χωρίς), with choris (χωρίς) functioning as an improper preposition introducing the prepositional phrase choris errgon nomou (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου) modifying anthropon (ἄνθρωπον) adjectivally.

Here is Romans 3:28 in the Greek New Testament.

λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.

Here are a few English translations of the passage under question.

(NIV) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

(NRSV) For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.

(ESV) For we hold that one is justified by faith papart from works of the law.

(NASB 1995) For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

(RSV) For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.

(KJV) Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

All the translations follow the lead of the KJV. Why? Are the translations reflecting an exegetical predisposition rather than the syntax of the sentence? Are the translations showing how an exegetical-theological predilection governs how one translates a passage? Or, is there something about the text that I am missing, that I do not see, or that I do not understand?

 

So, here is my question. Given the placement of χωρίς following the noun anthropon (ἄνθωπον) rather than the verb dikaiousthai (δικαιοῦσθαι) or the noun pistei (πίστει), why do our English translations not translate Romans 3:28 as follows? "For we reckon a man apart from the deeds required by the law to be justified by faith (by faithfulness)."

I have consulted several major commentaries on Romans (Cranfield, Dunn, Godet, Moo, Schreiner). Not one mentions anything about the syntax. All proceed as if there were nothing to address. Is this an example of a glaring exegetical issue in plain sight that receives no commentary attention? Or, is this an example of my seeing an exegetical phantom, an syntactical issue that does not exist?

Your exegetical insights and comments will be welcomed.

For quite a different understanding of Romans 3:28 see Dan Wallace's "Romans 3:28 and Jas 2:24: A Comparison."