The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Old Bibles vs. modern Bibles

It was recently pointed out to me and others that Bible versions written prior to the 20th century said that we are justified by the faith “of” Jesus Christ (i.e. Gal. 2:16). Where as Bibles written after the 20th century, say we are justified by faith “in” Jesus Christ.<br>The person who pointed this out said it was very significant by adding: <br><br>“The word “of” in both Greek and English means “from” and the word “of” is in the Greek so that a more literal translation would be: “through the faith from Jesus Christ” and “that we might be declared righteous by the faith from Christ”<br><br>Now this is what translators started doing and you can find it in the Parallel Greek English New Testaments. They did this in the translation: “through the faith of [in] Jesus Christ” and “that we might be declared righteous by the of [in] Christ”<br><br>Literally this would be translated like this “through the faith that is in Jesus Christ” and “that we might be declared righteous by the faith that is in Christ” That being to long of course, they shorten it to, as in the American Standard Version of 1901: “but through faith in Jesus Christ,” and “that we might be justified by faith in Christ,” you see they completely removed "of" and supplanted it with "in". <br>Now the Translator is justified in saying that he has maintained the integrity of the scripture that it still says the faith is in Christ but the reader assumes they are justified by putting their faith in Christ not by receiving faith from Christ.”<br><br><br><br>On the surface from someone who is not all that knowledgeable of matters like this, this person’s argument seems very convincing. But I have lived long enough to realize that not everything that “seems” convincing is actually the truth or the whole truth.<br>That is why I am posting this here, in hopes that someone can come by and shed some light on the matter.<br><br>Please understand I am not questioning the fact that faith is given to us. What I am wondering about, were the translater of the modern versions justified in using "in" instead of "of"?<br><br>I have included some quotes from Gal. 2:16, from Bibles written prior to and after the 20th century.<br><br>“(Gal 2:16) “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” King James Version <br><br>(Gal 2:16) “having known also that a man is not declared righteous by works of law, if not through the faith of Jesus Christ, also we in Christ Jesus did believe, that we might be declared righteous by the faith of Christ, and not by works of law, wherefore declared righteous by works of law shall be no flesh.” Young’s Literal Translation 1898<br><br>(Gal 2:16) “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Webster’s Bible 1833<br><br>Now compare this to a few Bibles written after 1901<br><br>(Gal 2:16) yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 1901 American Standard Version<br><br>(Gal 2:16) “nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified. 1978 NASB<br><br>Other modern versions also seem to convey a different understanding to Bible’s written prior to the 20th century.<br><br>Tom<br>

Tom,

Methinks that someone is expressing a "cult mentality" in making a big deal out of this matter. In both the TR and WH texts the Greek is the same. So, right away we can eliminate the possibility of textual variants. The differences in translations is definitely in the way the words are translated. So, why the difference? The following will allow you to see what Greek words — yes words, plural — that the translators are dealing with:

Galatians 2:16 (WH) "eidotes de oti ou dikaioutai anthrwpos ex ergwn nomou ean mh dia pistews cristou ihsou kai hmeis eis criston ihsoun episteusamen ina dikaiwthwmen ek pistews cristou kai ouk ex ergwn nomou oti ex ergwn nomou ou dikaiwthnsetai pasa sarx."

Galatians 2:16 (KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 2:16 (ASV) yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Without getting into a technical discussion about Greek grammar, you can see that there are 2 different words (highlighted) and not one in the original which the "pre-20th century translations" have translated "of the". In the first instance, the word is dia, which normally is translated "through". However Christ Jesus is genitive and perhaps this is why they opted for "of the"? But "through" faith "in" can't be faulted. In fact, it would appear to be far more legitimate than the "of the" translation. In the second instance, the word is ek, which is typically means "out of" or "from" (time, cause, etc.). Paul contrasts being justified ek from/by the law with being justified by/from faith in Jesus Christ. I find no good reason why "of the" is to be the preferred translation. In fact, it really isn't an accurate translation of the text at all.

Conclusion: IMHO, the ASV and other non-dynamic equivalent, later translations of this particular passage are to be preferred over the "pre 20th century" translations. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]

In His Grace,