Malachi151

I was reading my study Bible and noticed something interesting in Romans 10.

Talking about the Israelites here:

Footnote for 10:17:

So, the correct translation here is apparently "about Christ", or "of God".

Does anyone have more information on this?

I looked at several other translations on-line and they all say "of Christ".

This looks to me like a case where the translators can plainly see that this reading is problematic for historicity and have tried to smooth it over with a more acceptable translation that puts the words into the mouth of Jesus, though that's not really what it says.

Ben C Smith

The textual tradition is divided here. P46, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraimi rescriptus, and the original hand of Bezae all have Christ, while the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and the first corrector of Bezae all have God.

This is not quite correct. The correct and literal translation is either of Christ or of God. Both variants are in the genitive.

The problem in translation is a common one, since in Greek this genitive could potentially be either subjective or objective. If subjective, then either Christ or God is the one speaking, and we would understand the phrase as the word spoken by whichever it is. If objective, then either Christ or God is the one being spoken about, and we would understand the phrase as the word spoken about whichever it is.

(An example of an objective genitive in English is love of country, where a person is loving his or her country; an example of a subjective genitive in English is forgiveness of God, where it is God who is doing the forgiving. A phrase like the love of a woman is ambiguous; is it the love that a man has for that woman or is it the love that the woman has for a man?)

I cannot even remotely see how any of the four available translations (word from Christ, word about Christ, word from God, word about God) impact the historicity of Jesus. Even the word spoken by Christ could just as well be the word spoken by the risen Christ, not the historical Jesus.

Ben.

Malachi151

Thanks for that info. "from Christ" would of course imply that he was here and said it. "about Christ" of course implies no such thing.

Ben C Smith

I agree with the second statement. But the first is not quite right. A word from Christ could be a word from a heavenly Christ, right? It does not have to be an earthly Christ.

Ben.

Malachi151

True. I should say that option 1 makes it possible to read as having come "from the mouth of", while option 2 does not.

Gamera

I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with Paul's major theme that the gospel itself saves, i.e, the Jesus narrative that he preaches, since Jesus is no longer here to speak for himself. And indeed, the semiotics of Paul seem to present the gospel message as the only means of salvation -- even Jesus himself doesn't save per se, because salvation is a matter of faith not proof. It is the story about Jesus, upon being heard, that is an ocassion for acceptance or rejection. If a resurrected Jesus were walking around, it would be hard to reject him, or at least such rejection would raise other issues beyond faith.

Thus:

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith

S.C.Carlson

Rom 10:17 is a very famous verse for encouraging people to preach the gospel to save souls. It is perhaps best known in the King James ("So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."), where "word of God" refers to the gospel message (see v. 16), the message about Jesus. The King James is based on the Textus Receptus, and happens to use the variant "God" instead of "Christ" of the critical text, but even the "word of Christ" reading refers to the gospel message (in fact, more clearly so).

I'm not aware of anyone who uses this verse for the historicity of Jesus. That's not how "word of Christ/God" is typically interpreted in context. In fact, interpreting "word of Christ" as the words from the historical Jesus might limit the efficacy of the preached gospel in imparting faith only when and if Jesus himself spoke it. Not very evangelical. Given the faith position of a lot of Bible translators, I really cannot see them doing what is being claimed of them.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

I would add that, given the fact that the historicity of Jesus is so rarely questioned in those circles, I doubt anyone in those circles would plainly see any given verse as casting his historicity into doubt and therefore deliberately steer clear of the implications. Modern translators seem a lot more concerned over masculine pronouns, the proper rendering of parthenos, and which of the more questionable variants to keep in brackets within the text.

Ben.