Ask anytime. this stuff is often far from obvious (I read this stuff fluently and I miss a lot. When I’m doing a serious translation I have 3 good Lexicons at my side and a shelf of commentaries). I very much appreciate comments such as yours. Oh, and I highly recommend Bible Hub. There you can get 25+ different translations of the same verse.
The grammatically correct Hebrew version of 15:6 … and reckoned
The mistranslation by the LXX …and was reckoned
In the older Hebrew version, the Hebrew word for reckoned is in the active voice
In the New LXX version, the Greek word is translated to the passive voice.
I think we should clarify what legalism is…because Revelation 14.12 is pretty clear on its definitions of saintd…
Here are those who:
Keep the commandments and
Have the faith/testimony of Jesus
What i find interesting is that Christs parables are mostly “doing”…if that isnt works then i dont know what is.
Faith and the fruits of faith clearly go together in the biblical narrative. Abraham believed, but he actually had to then do something about that belief.
‘Some mistranslations are not a matter of translation naivety or expertise, but objective fact. In this case, the Greek authors of the LXX objectively mistranslated the verb of the second clause of 15:6. In any case, you are correct: they translated as “they chose to,” not as the Hebrew indicated.’
That’s just an assertion. I would suggest that many Hebrew and Greek scholars, ie experts in those languages, would disagree with such an assertion. You mentioned the paper being ‘peer reviewed’. I would be interested to know who these ‘peers’ were - Biblical Hebrew and LXX Greek scholars?
Um, not it doesn’t – I read it twice now, and the only “assumption” I can find is that ancient Hebrew should be translated in accord with ancient Hebrew grammar.
Seems reasonable to be “semitic” given that Paul was a Jew all his life.
Yes, but that has no bearing on how to translate – you translate according to the grammar.
But it’s part of the context of the verse – a major element of the grammatical-historical method.
And that’s not in dispute.
Just FWIW, “peer reviewed” means no one found any flaws and the point is worthy of consideration; it doesn’t mean “agreed with”.
As an illustration of how that works, one of my professors once got a paper published in a good journal, but two years later that paper was critiqued and much of it overturned . . . by that same professor.
I was trying to head off complaints about peer review being some sort of imprimatur, something that pops up from people who seem to regard “Darwinism” as a religion.
Paul was a Greek Jew, raised in a Greek culture and city (Tarsus). We know that he understood Hebrew (he as much says so and have no reason to doubt him). It’s also my understanding that while Paul quoted extensively from the Old Testament, he used the LXX.
The reason why Paul uses the LXX almost exclusively is that Hebrew Bible did not exist as a single document. Synagogues often had a subset of scrolls but not the whole collection. But also he was evangelizing to the Gentiles so he (and his scribes) chose to copy from the Greek text of the LXX. The LXX was a complete translation of the Hebrew Bible and widely available. It’s not that Paul didn’t understand (or could not translate) Hebrew. It’s more a matter of convenience.
Peer review means that expert reviewers, usually at least two, need to give to the editor an evaluation report of the work and based on the report, a recommendation that the manuscript is suitable for publication in that journal. Often the referee reports include comments on details that the reviewer thinks need to be modified before the publication. Reviewers do not always note all mistakes or are not experts of everything but having at least two reviewers and a subject editor as goalkeepers filters most of the weaknesses away.
Sometimes a reviewer may send to the editor a note that he/she disagrees with the author but the manuscript itself is ok and the reviewer recommends publication in order that the other experts get a possibility to respond to the claims in the manuscript.
There are so called ‘predatory journals’ that publish almost anything semi-rational if the author pays the expensive page fees (usually several thousands of USD) but in most journals, the review process stops the majority of the submitted manuscripts, at least until the author has made the corrections that the reviewers demand. In the most respected journals, passing the peer review process is anything but trivial because it is not enough that the manuscript does not have errors, the topic and style of writing need to be such that the editors assume that the paper attracts readers and gets citations.
Edit:
Sorry, this was a response to @EDC1 although I made it through a comment of @St.Roymond - I took initially also the text of @St.Roymond but deleted that part while editing my comment.
ah. well, Id respectfully dispute your use of the phrase “mistranslated”, then. Active and passive voice certainly are not without connotation and set a tone or perhaps emphasis, but are more stylistic, and rarely change the actual meaning of any text. in my own professional mentoring i regularly advise officers to use active voice as it “sounds” more engaging, but not because it conveys even the slightest difference in actual information.
i respectfully, then, find it a rather gross overstatement to claim that something was “mistranslated” because the translators for whatever reason went from active to passive voice, or vice versa. this could simply be more of a translation philosophy, if the translators intended something to sound more natural in the destination language, not unlike the NIV’s dynamic equivalent translation philosophy.
If i were listening to a speech at the UN, where a dignitary said that “Ukrainian Territory was invaded by Russia on October 15th…” but the translator relayed it as, "Russia invaded Ukrainian territory on October 15th… "… it seems to me rather pedantic to accuse a translator of “mistranslation” at that point, when the literal exact information was conveyed. it might indeed not be the most exactingly literal translation, granted, but claiming that a UN translator “mistranslated” the dignitary’s words at this point would seem to me ungenerous and pedantic, if not misleading.
i went to look at the paper itself but I’m just not interested in all the registering needed, so forgive me if any of these points i miss in the paper… im only going off the abstract
but perhaps my biggest quibble is that one doesn’t need to propose an alternate or speculative reading of Gen 15:6 to recognize the aspect of Abraham’s covenantal obedience or the sense of him being justified by his works from Gen 22… James recognized this just fine 2000 years ago, and he too seemed to be operating with the traditional/LXX reading of Gen 15:6, no?
Further, Im not seeing some argument against justification by faith in the context of Gen 15… Everything there revolves around God’s unilateral, unconditional, self-imprecatory blood oath promise to bless Abraham, which he received (in Gen15) through absolutely nothing more than “believing.” the justification by faith alone in this chapter doesnt stand or fall merely on the specific words in 15:6.
Then following James’s reasoning, Abraham was indeed justified by his works based on Abraham living out his faith as per Gen22, the “faith” that James affirms Abraham demonstrated in Gen 15.
my own biggest quibble though is probably this…
Moreover, it is not until the Aqedah (Genesis 22) that 'Elohim finally and explicitly judges 'Avraham’s righteousness, but doing so based on covenantal obedience (22:12). This reinterpretation returns us to the voice of the Hebrew narrator, whose theology of justification is expressed not as a forensic imputation, but as faithfulness tested and proven through obedience.
I am skeptical of any claim that some part of Scripture gives us the “real” answer, which allows us to ignore or override the implications of another part, without some obvious warrant. Why could I not argue back that Gen 15 sets the “real” voice of the Hebrew narrator, where Abraham was blessed solely by faith, … and through which his actions in Gen22 must be read, and thus we see justification expressed not as faithfulness proven through obedience, but as a forensic declaration?
point is, God explicitly makes the very same promise to bless Abraham (descendents numerous as the stars), in both Gen 15 and 22, the former absolutely sworn by God by self-maledictory oath, on no basis beyond Abraham’s trust and belief,… the latter promise gave “because you did this” righteous act. Why does one need to be set against the other and we have to choose which is the “real”, or final, word on the topic? why does one have to be primary to the other? why not recognize, with James, that his actions were working together with, and were the fulfillment of, the saving faith he was exhibiting in Chapter 15, rather than trying to minimize or otherwise negate the import of Abraham’s blessing as received by faith in Gen 15?
That does not seem to be the context in which you are using the term…you appear to use it here to separate biblical literalists from ANE. So are you saying they [YEC] are legalists?
The context is the OP of this thread which I saw as a challenge to Paul’s teaching on justification by faith. My response was how Christianity changes our understanding no matter what text Paul was referring to in the OT.
No I did not say YEC are legalists. My response to you is exactly as I said, that Romans 10 provides a sufficient definition of legalism. IF you say that believing in evolution condemns people to hell, then YES you most certainly ARE a legalist by the definition in Romans 10. Not only that but it would make you a Gnostic as well with the implication of salvation by dogma.
Sure this forum is all about the compatibility of evolution with Christianity. But while your involvement is all about opposition to this aim, that is not the not the only issue addressed in the forum. To be sure, I think some use this forum as a platform to challenge more fundamental teachings of Christianity, just as there are atheists who try to use evolution as a challenge to theism in general. Perhaps you want to reinforce your creationist-atheist alliance by supporting the OP. That is your choice, but of course I will oppose you in this.
active – Tom hit a rock.
passive – Tom was hit by a rock.
Another:
active – NASA built a rocket.
passive – NASA was built by a rocket.
A third:
active – Linda knocked over the vase.
passive – Linda was knocked over by the vase.
There’s a huge difference between doing something and having it done to you.
It has nothing to do with style, it has to do with which direction the action is
going.
False comparison: to make it match the issue in the article, it would be:
passive – Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
active – Ukraine invaded Russia.
Changing a verb from active to passive while leaving the subject the same reverses the meaning.