Boo… Theologically Manipulated Translation. Boo…
Ok, class. Get out your black highlighters and your pencils! We’re going to play, “Correct your sanitized translation!”
We’ll start by all turning to the same passage: Galatians 5:6. Is everyone there? Great!
What does your translation say that faith does? “In Christ Jesus, neither does circumcision avail nor uncircumcision but faith ______ through love.” What’s in the blank?
(Sarcasm alert!) Now a casual reader of the Greek might think that because ἐνεργουμένη means “working” or “being at work” that we should translate this “faith working through love”. But since we know that we’re saved by faith and not by works, that can’t possibly be what it means! So let’s try “faith expressing itself through love”! Perfect! (/Sarcasm alert!)
Seriously, people. The thing says “faith working through love.” If your bible says “expressing itself”: get out the black highlighter, highlight that bad boy, and write in “working” in its place.
What sort of faith does Paul hope to see? “The obedience of faith” (Romans 1); “work of faith” (1 Thessalonians 1); and, yes, “faith working through love” (Galatians 5).
Faith and works go together. Don’t let your translation hoodwinkle [sic.] you.
The only translations I found were the NIV & TNIV. Shockingly, the NASB, ESV, & NKJV all have “working.” That’s a surprise to me. The NET, NRSV, & RSV all have “working” as well, but that’s not as much of a surprise to me.
Actually, it’s “faith through love working.”
I guess my question would be, “What does ‘faith working through love” mean? If readers interpret it as something like, “Faith that is realized in an atmosphere of love” it might be OK.
The other question I have is what “theological motivation” do you feel is motivating these alternative renderings. All translations are inherently theological.
The theological motivation I see is needing to maintain that faith and works are antinomous, that “faith versus works” is a fundamental dichotomy in the gospel.
Oh yeah: all translations are, of course, inherently theological.
It’s simply of utmost importance that the theology they reflect is mine!
Gee JRDK, next you’ll tell us we need to translate σάρξ as “flesh” or sumpthin’.
[...] Boo… Theologically Manipulated Translation. Boo… by J.R. Daniel Kirk [...]
Speaking of theologically manipulated translations, Jer is almost done with a post on the (clearly totally non-scholarly and therefore largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) Conservative Bible Project. There people are translating Greek using lexicons alone, it seems, and weaving in theological biases, such as a desire for people to understand the free-market principles embedded in Jesus’s parables.
Again, not very important because the number of people who will take them seriously is quite small. Yet frightening, nonetheless. It’s been going on for a while now, but some books’ translations are finally available to read–it’s quite entertaining.
Damn right, Daniel… we’ll make an Anabaptist of you yet!
Ian, Scot McKnight has called me a Reformed Anabaptist. I have no idea what he means, but I sorta like the sound of it and hope he’s right!
Six of one, half dozen of the other, if you ask me. I don’t see that much difference between the translations, unless you’re coming to the text with the question “Is faith versus works a fundamental dichotomy in the gospel?”
Granted, the evangelical and/or lightly churched audiences that read most of these Bibles probably already have the dichotomy in their heads, and the translators are probably avoiding the word “works” to prevent cognitive dissonance. Sort of the same way translations avoid saying that God “repented,” since repentance in our churchy language means “to feel sorry for committing sin.”
[...] Love, and What Matters in Galatians 5:6 A conversation started by J.R. Daniel Kirk at Stories Theology (picked up by BBB here), addresses two questions: [...]
[...] to make our translation say X.” For example, in translating Galatians 5:6 (recently discussed here, here and by me here), some people try to figure out what Paul believed about circumcision, faith, [...]
[...] put to work on Galatians 5:6 There has been quite some discussion on various blogs over the post by Daniel Kirk (no relation of mine) suggesting that translations of Galatians 5:6 are “theologically [...]
[...] 22, 2010 · Leave a Comment J. R. Daniel Kirk has stated emphatically that Galatians 5:6 should be translated as “faith working through love” in opposition [...]
[...] translation, David Ker at Better Bibles engages a post by Daniel Kirk at Storied Theology on theological manipulation in a translation of Gal [...]
[...] I discussed energeo (responding to discussions by J.R. Daniel Kirk and on BBB — then BBB followed up, as did T.C. Robinson), one comment noted that I [...]
Either way, I don’t understand the argument here, for three reasons:
1) The statement begins with “In Christ Jesus…” which indicates to me that Paul isn’t trying to make a statement about Salvation (in context, he’s speaking to Christians about *their* faith)–which you might say is the process of moving from “not in Christ Jesus” to “in Christ Jesus”. Here Paul is talking about life *in Christ Jesus.*
2) What is the difference between saying that faith “works” through love, or that faith “expresses itself” through love? Practically speaking, how are people going to interpret those two statements any differently? Both mean, roughly, “I have confidence in Christ and that causes me”–you might say “energizes me”–”to love people.”
3) Even if my first point isn’t true, and Paul were trying to make a point about salvation, it still doesn’t make “working through” or “expressing itself through” mean any different from each other on a functional level, and it still depends upon the reader to decide whether Paul is saying that Salvation is dependent upon the *faith* that “works through love”, or upon the “working through love” that faith does.
I mean no offence when I give my opinion that the only problem here is that we have come to the place in western Christianity where buzz words like “work” and “obedience” have become saturated with negative connotations and saddled with unnecessary meanings. Obviously, love does stuff. You do things because you love someone. Obviously, faith does stuff. You do things because you have faith in someone. Does it make it any better or worse for me to say “love expresses itself” or “love works”–”faith expresses itself” or “faith works”? –I don’t know why we can’t just let Paul say that, without assuming he’s trying to lay down a soteriological edict.