# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S367
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

again we must remember that in translation we are not merely giving pos-
sible dictionary meanings to words. It is important that translation be gov-
emed by an analysis of referent and meaning. To what or to whom, pre-
cisely, does the language refer? Is there an underlying thematic structure
which is to be allowed expression? In translating anthropos one needs to
consider these kinds of questions.

The plural form (av6panoi) very often refers to people in general or to
a group of persons irrespective of the gender mix. Traditionally, the plur-
al has often been translated by “men.” For example, the RSV translates
Matt. 6:14 f. as follows: “For if you forgive men (wis dv6paeors) their tres-
passes, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not for-
give men (twig avOpamots) their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive
your trespasses.” Another example of a traditional rendering would be
John 3:19: “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the
world, and men (01 Gv@paxo) loved darkness rather than light... .” *
However, in such contexts, to translate with “people” or “all persons” or
more indefinitely with “everyone” would be altogether proper. The refer-
ent in each case is not a particular set of persons characterized by mascu-
line gender. The referent is indefinite and non-specific and may, given cir-
cumstances, be comprised of males or females or both. Therefore, one
might well translate John 3:19 as follows: “And this is the judgment, that
the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than
light.” Or, to take another example, one might render 1 Tim. 2:4 as follows:
God “desires all persons (navtug avépemous) * to be saved and to come to
the knowledge of the truth.”

Similarly, the singular of anthropos often has the force of an indefinite
pronoun. For example, the RSV translates Mark 4:26 as follows: “And he
said, The kingdom of God is as if a man (avépwxoc) should scatter seed
upon the ground ....” Another example would be Gal. 2:16: “... who
know that a man (a@v@pewxo;) is not justified by works of the law but
through faith in Jesus Christ.” It is clear that in both of these passages the
implied referent is not one unspecified person who is male, but rather any-
one and everyone to whom the passage applies. Therefore, these passages
could properly be rendered “the kingdom of God is as if someone should
scatter seed upon the ground,” and “who know that a person is not justi-
fied by works of the law.” Likewise, in John 3:27 John the Baptist says to
his disciples: “No one can receive anything except what is given to him
from heaven.” The Greek for “no one” is ou anthropos (ov GvOpaxog), but
clearly in a passage like this the Greek possesses the meaning of an indefi-
nite pronoun. *

“4 Other examples: Matt. 5:13; 6:1 £5, 18; 7:12; 8:27; 12:26; Acts 22:15; 1 Tim. 2:4 f; Rev.
21:3.

% On occasion the RSV translates the plural of cv@pemns indefinitely. For example, 1
Cor, 7:7 is rendered, “I wish that all (xaveos av@pdmoug) were as I myself am.”

% Other examples: Matt. 13:31; Mark. 3:1; 7:11; John 3:4; 1 Cor. 7:26; 11:28; Gal. 6:7.

33

here Christ Jesus is referred to as the Second Adam, as was suggested
above. Lf that is the case, the translation should be “the man Christ Jesus.” 7

A passage such as Eph. 3:16 presents a similarly complex issue. Here
the apostle Paul prays “... that according to the riches of his glory he may
grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner
man (eig tov Eow GvOpamov) ...” At first thought one might conclude that
“inner man” could be rendered “inner person.” That indeed may be the
case. However, does “inner man” merely indicate the interior reality of
faith which each Christian ? Or, might “inner man” indicate the
renewed humanity in Christ which is possessed in faith but is not yet visi-
ble? Should this latter meaning be the case, “inner man” would not refer
to each Christian person individually considered, but would refer to each
Christian considered as a member of that new humanity held together and
in common by all Christians in the constitutive reality of the person of
Christ (see also 1 Cor. 2:14 f.; 2 Cor. 4:16; Rom 7:22; Eph. 4:22,24; Col. 3:9).
We may debate whether Paul had such a theme in mind. Nonetheless, in
its desire to accommodate the legitimate interests of inclusive language,
the church ought never lose sight of the fact that Christian reality is Chris-
tological and that we do not exist as Christians by ourselves or in our-
selves, but by Christ and in Christ. We should, therefore, always be atten-
tive to the possibility that biblical statements are formed and informed by
Christological considerations.

Finally, we note prepositional phrases like “according to man” (xatd
Gv@paxov). This phrase, too, has usually been translated as in the RSV
translation of 1 Cor. 3:3: “For while there is jealousy and strife among you,
are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?” However, the
Phrase means “in a human way,” or “from a human point of view.” 1 Cor.
3:3 could be translated “.. . are you not of the flesh, and behaving after the
manner of [sinful] people?” (see also 1 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 1:1; 3:5).

C. Use of Impersonal Pronouns

The Greek has certain impersona} pronouns which certainly may be
translated impersonally: “anyone” (tig), “everyone” (xdq), “no one”
(ovbeig). Therefore, the RSV translation of James 2:14, “What does it prof-
it... if a man says he has faith but has not works?” may be rephrased
“What does it profit if someone (tig) claims to have faith but has not works?”

© The mere occurrence of a word twice in a sentence does not demand a similar ren-
dering if the semantic field of each is different. Take, for example, this sentence: “The king
of Siam was regarded by all as the king of polo players.” Clearly the word “king” does not
occupy the same semantic field in each case. Were the intention of a translation to reduce the
of the word “king,” the sentence might well be as follows: “The king of Siam was
regarded by all as the premier polo player.”

+ 35

On the other hand, in Matt. 9:9 the referent of anthropos is known,
although in itself the word may still possess indefinite force: “As Jesus
passed on from there, he saw a man (Gv@pano<) called Matthew sitting at
the tax office. ...” Here one might well decide to translate as the RSV does,
especially in light of the known referent. However, should the translator
determine that the gender reality of Matthew is not entailed in the inten-
tionality of anthropos, the translation could be as follows: “As Jesus passed
on from there, he saw someone called Matthew.” Such a translation would
not be misleading, nor would it necessarily misconstrue the text. One
might, of course, argue that once the referent is known an indefinite trans-
lation bleaches out what the context in fact makes known about this
“man.” This is an example, however, of the kind of sensitivity toward the
text which a translator ought to possess when rendering the Scriptures.

Sometimes anthropos is used twice in a sentence, but with different ref-
erents. As examples we quote the following two passages:

Rom. 5:12:
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man (51 €vo< avOpamoy)

and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (eis xdvtas
dv@pamous ) because all men (xivtes) sinned.

1 Tim. 2:5:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men
(avOpommav), the man (GvOpixos } Christ Jesus.

In the first passage, “one man” clearly refers to Adam. Since the nar-
rative of the Fall involves the relationship of Adam with Eve, it is evident
that Adam as the “man” is the referent. One could not, therefore, rightly
translate, “. ..as sin came into the world through one person ....” Here the
singular does not appear to have indefinite force, but rather it has a specif-
ic and personal reference, the man Adam. However, the plural “men” in
this verse does not refer only to persons who are males. It refers to alll peo-
pk, and therefore could rightly be translated “human persons” or “human
beings”: “...s0 death spread to alll human persons.” The second “all men”
in the RSV translation renders simply the Greek word for “all.” (There is
no Greek word there for “men” or “women” or “people.”) The better trans-
lation is, properly, “because ail sinned.”

In 1 Tim 2:5 the translation “men” could well be replaced with “{all]
persons” or “{all] people”: “For there is one God, and there is one media-
tor between God and fall] people... .” However, it would be linguistically
and thematically wooden to insist that the second occurrence of anthropos
must be similarly rendered “the person Christ Jesus.” It might welt be that

Similarly, Gal. 3:11 may be translated, “Now it is evident that no one
({ovd5eic) is justified before God by the law,” instead of the RSV translation,
“it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law.”

D. Indefinite Constructions

With some frequency the Greek places a definite article with a participle
to form an indefinite construction. The RSV translates Rev. 2:29, “He who
has an ear, let him hear.” The grammatical form for “he who has” (6 ézaw),
although masculine in its grammatical gender, is clearly indefinite in refer-
ent. One could translate, “Whoever has an ear, let that person hear....” A
similar passage is 2 Cor. 10:17, which the RSV translates “Let him who
boasts, boast of the Lord.” This verse could, however, be rendered “Who-
ever boasts, boast in the Lord” (see also Matt. 10:39; 12:30; John 11:25).

However, the grammatical construction of a definite article with a par-
ticiple does not always have an indefinite reference. In Rev. 3:1 the same
construction occurs with the same participle (0 €yav) as in Rev. 2:29. How-
ever, in Rev 3:1 the reference is not to anyone, but to Christ alone. While
the RSV translates “The words of him who has .. .,” the more literal trans-
lation would be “He who has ...” Such an example illustrates the princi-
ple that a strict analysis of referent is crucial for determining correct and
allowable translations.

E. References to “Brother”

Some gender neutral translations attempt to find gender neutral equiv-
alents for the word “brother” (a5e1¢d<). For example, the common trans-
lation of Matt. 18:15, found in the RSV, is “If your brother sins against you,
go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” This becomes in the
New Revised Standard Version “If another member of the church sins against
you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.” Although
Matt. 18:15 applies to all Christians, male and female, “member of the
church” is not an accurate translation of this biblical text. Furthermore, the

However, it is not always so easy to rid a translation of grammatical masculine forms.
Take, for example, John 14:23: “Jesus answered him, ‘Ifa man (ri) loves me, he will keep my
word, and my Father will love him (avtov), and we will come to him (xpos avtiv) and make
our home with him (xap' aiup).”. While tis can be translated with “whoever,” the folowing
masculine pronouns in the translation render Greek pronouns in the grammatical masculine
gender. Clearly they do not denote males only. but denote the indefinite referent indicaled
by Tis, One could follow the strategy of the NRSV, which translates with plurals: ~... my
Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” Again,
however, that is not an accurate translation of the Greek pronouns in the text, which are sin-
gular. One could opt for this inelegant translation: ~... my Father will love him/her, and we
will come to him/her and make our home with him/her.” The proper sense is there, but as a
text to be mad, the Scriptures translated in that way would become ponderous.

%

365