Explaining the Mistake in Romans 5:7

[eclipseEventSigns]

The Greek text of Romans 5:7 contains a very blatant error. It doesn't make any sense. Commentators twist the text into pretzel shapes trying to explain away what Paul is apparently saying. Here's the verse in context of Paul's thought flow.

[Rom 5:6-10 LSB] 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man, though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

In verse 7, Paul is apparently contrasting the "righteous" to the "good". Apparently even though someone is righteous, that's not enough for someone to give their life for them. But if you are regarded as somewhat less - maybe just good - ya, then some would give their life. Huh? What kind of nonsense is this? And yet, all translations based on the Greek text state this nonsense.

Here's a different text which faithfully records Paul's intended meaning.
Romans 5:6-8 So then, Messiah, because of our weakness, in this point in history died in place of the wicked. Indeed hardly would one die in place of the wicked; in place of the good, indeed perhaps one would dare to die. Therefore, God displayed his love towards us, in that, while we were sinners, Messiah has died in place of us.
Peshitta Romans 5:7

Yes, this makes so much more sense. In the Aramaic Peshitta original text, Paul uses the same word in verse 6 and 7 - the word "wicked". He sets up the contrast that everyone knows no one would consider the wicked worthy to give one's life for. Yet, Messiah, due to his love for us, and even though we were wicked, did give his life in place of us.

This demonstrates that the Aramaic text is actually the original text. The Greek text, a translation, included a mistake very early on which has been transmitted to every other copy down through the centuries. And even now continues to be put into all translations based on the Greek.

 

[Josheb]

This question is off-topic but so few people use the LSB and you appear to have some specific education in the matter, so I am curious what your thoughts are: Given the deliberate effort of the LSB translators to accurately portray the original language.....

Why do you think they did not use "logos" in John's preamble? The word "word," does not wholly portray the meaning of the Greek, especially not in its first century Hellenistic context and there is no reason why we couldn't have "logos" in our modern translations.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

This question is off-topic but so few people use the LSB and you appear to have some specific education in the matter, so I am curious what your thoughts are: Given the deliberate effort of the LSB translators to accurately portray the original language.....

Why do you think they did not use "logos" in John's preamble? The word "word," does not wholly portray the meaning of the Greek, especially not in its first century Hellenistic context and there is no reason why we couldn't have "logos" in our modern translations.

As I understand it, their goal was to use the same word for the same word found in the manuscripts (the best they could determine) - using English. Logos is obviously a Greek word. In addition, logos has changed in meaning throughout history so it would introduce non-biblical connotations and not be an accurate representation. Also, there is no proof John originally wrote his Gospel in Greek (although I'm sure the LSB translators would not agree with that statement).

 

[Josheb]

While I appreciate the content of the op, I wonder why it is there is no appeal to the Greek because neither translation posted in the op is the best. Because we live in an age when the original manuscript evidence can be consulted within the few seconds of a few mouse clicks debates about translation are becoming increasingly antiquated. A simple examination of the Greek shows a transliteration of Romans 5:6 might read,

Indeed, Messiah (or Christ), our being without strength, died for the ungodly at the right (or appointed) time.

That would be a simple, direct, straight-forward translation of the Greek, and one that is easy to read and readily comprehensible at a fairly rudimentary reading level. It's also much more accurate because there is no "weakness" in the Greek and there's no reason "without strength" cannot or should not exist ("sthenos" literally meaning "strength" and the "a-" prefix indicating an absence of that strength). It's not so much that "weakness" is not valid (it is) but that in a supposed effort pursuing accuracy the weakness is less accurate.

Note also (scrolling down the linked-to page) that in regards to the "asthenes" there is absolutely no variation in the sampled Greek manuscripts. The only differences elsewhere in the verse occur in the Westcott and Hort versions.


While the Peshitta may, in your opinion, may "make so much more sense" (I disagree), its use of "wicked" is not an accurate translation of the Greek which contains the words "dikaiou" and "agathou," which literally mean "righteous" and "good." In other words, in what can be assumed to be an effort to "make sense" the Peshitta has chosen exact opposites of the Greek. It is a translation of antithesis, not thesis.

 

[Josheb]

As I understand it, their goal was to use the same word for the same word found in the manuscripts (the best they could determine) - using English. Logos is obviously a Greek word. In addition, logos has changed in meaning throughout history so it would introduce non-biblical connotations and not be an accurate representation. Also, there is no proof John originally wrote his Gospel in Greek (although I'm sure the LSB translators would not agree with that statement).

Yes, but the change in meaning is sort of the point and basis for using logos, imo. Granted, most people wouldn't understand the text at plan reading but with a modicum of study the Hellenistic context is readily learned. In turn, having learned the context, a fuller meaning of John's purpose (repudiation of the then-existing Hellenism in Judaism prominent in his day and an affirmation of Jesus' divinity) is possible.

Are you aware of the likelihood John is referencing Philo?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Yes, but the change in meaning is sort of the point and basis for using logos, imo. Granted, most people wouldn't understand the text at plan reading but with a modicum of study the Hellenistic context is readily learned. In turn, having learned the context, a fuller meaning of John's purpose (repudiation of the then-existing Hellenism in Judaism prominent in his day and an affirmation of Jesus' divinity) is possible.

Are you aware of the likelihood John is referencing Philo?

Yes, I've heard that proposal. But it is a wrong assumption. Since there is no proof that John originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. So the controversy of the word "logos" is not valid.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

While I appreciate the content of the op, I wonder why it is there is no appeal to the Greek because neither translation posted in the op is the best. Because we live in an age when the original manuscript evidence can be consulted within the few seconds of a few mouse clicks debates about translation are becoming increasingly antiquated. A simple examination of the Greek shows a transliteration of Romans 5:6 might read,

Indeed, Messiah (or Christ), our being without strength, died for the ungodly at the right (or appointed) time.

That would be a simple, direct, straight-forward translation of the Greek, and one that is easy to read and readily comprehensible at a fairly rudimentary reading level. It's also much more accurate because there is no "weakness" in the Greek and there's no reason "without strength" cannot or should not exist ("sthenos" literally meaning "strength" and the "a-" prefix indicating an absence of that strength). It's not so much that "weakness" is not valid (it is) but that in a supposed effort pursuing accuracy the weakness is less accurate.

Note also (scrolling down the linked-to page) that in regards to the "asthenes" there is absolutely no variation in the sampled Greek manuscripts. The only differences elsewhere in the verse occur in the Westcott and Hort versions.


While the Peshitta may, in your opinion, may "make so much more sense" (I disagree), its use of "wicked" is not an accurate translation of the Greek which contains the words "dikaiou" and "agathou," which literally mean "righteous" and "good." In other words, in what can be assumed to be an effort to "make sense" the Peshitta has chosen exact opposites of the Greek. It is a translation of antithesis, not thesis.

I really don't know what your statements about "weakness" are addressing.

The point is that the Greek in verse 7 is nonsense. It does not make sense. "Righteous" vs. "good"? The Greek has Paul making a statement that does not fit the context of what he has been discussing. Only the Aramaic provides the correct wording in the context of the logic flow of Paul's statements. This shows that the Aramaic is the original and the Greek a translation.

 

[Josheb]

Yes, I've heard that proposal.

Have you investigated it?

But it is a wrong assumption.

I disagree.

Since there is no proof that John originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. So the controversy of the word "logos" is not valid.

I see. Am I to understand your argument is that because there is no evidence John wrote his gospel in Greek there is no evidence, he ever used the word logos?

The poverty of the koine Greek has already been asserted as evidence and that evidence is commonly accepted by most textual critics. Furthermore, if John was quoting from (or referencing) Philo, then that is evidence and necessarily sufficient evidence to conclude John wrote in Greek because Philo used the word logos and John's preamble directly and decisively addressed Philo's content. The alternative being John's preamble is either an anthropomorphizing of "debar" given the Jewish/Hebrew context of scripture as a whole or happenstance and both would greatly reduce the meaning and significance of the preamble.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Have you investigated it?

I disagree.

I see. Am I to understand your argument is that because there is no evidence John wrote his gospel in Greek there is no evidence, he ever used the word logos?

The poverty of the koine Greek has already been asserted as evidence and that evidence is commonly accepted by most textual critics. Furthermore, if John was quoting from (or referencing) Philo, then that is evidence and necessarily sufficient evidence to conclude John wrote in Greek because Philo used the word logos and John's preamble directly and decisively addressed Philo's content. The alternative being John's preamble is either an anthropomorphizing of "debar" given the Jewish/Hebrew context of scripture as a whole or happenstance and both would greatly reduce the meaning and significance of the preamble.

Because of your ad hominem attack in another thread, anything further from you will be ignored.

 

[Josheb]

I really don't know what your statements about "weakness" are addressing.

Look up the Greek manuscripts. I provided a link so everyone could do so and thereby examine the evidence for themselves. The word "weakness" does not exist in the Greek. At all.

The point is that the Greek in verse 7 is nonsense.

Then it is a baseless point completely lacking in proof because the little evidence provided is largely one of opinion, selective use of Peshitta, and not one of textual consensus.

It does not make sense. "Righteous" vs. "good"? The Greek has Paul making a statement that does not fit the context of what he has been discussing.

I disagree.

The sentence's redundancy for the sake of emphasis is a commonly used literary device throughout scripture and one that is wholly consistent with both Hebrew and Greek literature outside of the Bible. Someone might possibly die for a righteous (or good) person. BUT..... that's NOT what Jesus did. Jesus did not die for a good person; he died for sinners while they were still sinners.

That's perfectly consistent with plenty of other scripture (such as Mk. 2:17).

Only the Aramaic provides the correct wording in the context of the logic flow of Paul's statements.

I disagree.

This shows that the Aramaic is the original and the Greek a translation.

I disagree.

And I, for one, say that you will have to summon (and post ) much more evidence (both in volume and effect) if you wish to be persuasive.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Look up the Greek manuscripts. I provided a link so everyone could do so and thereby examine the evidence for themselves. The word "weakness" does not exist in the Greek. At all.

Then it is a baseless point completely lacking in proof because the little evidence provided is largely one of opinion, selective use of Peshitta, and not one of textual consensus.

I disagree.

The sentence's redundancy for the sake of emphasis is a commonly used literary device throughout scripture and one that is wholly consistent with both Hebrew and Greek literature outside of the Bible. Someone might possibly die for a righteous (or good) person. BUT..... that's NOT what Jesus did. Jesus did not die for a good person; he died for sinners while they were still sinners.

That's perfectly consistent with plenty of other scripture (such as Mk. 2:17).

I disagree.

I disagree.

And I, for one, say that you will have to summon (and post ) much more evidence (both in volume and effect) if you wish to be persuasive.

I have. And only the open minded will research and appreciate it.

 

[Josheb]

Because of your ad hominem attack in another thread, anything further from you will be ignored.

Have it your way but the facts in evidence are what matter AND while you can choose not to respond to others' posts that will not stop anyone from posting their replies. On this specific occasion the op is interesting and worth discussing if some semblance of reasonable, rational evidence can be provided and evidence that withstands both critical examination and more veracious alternatives. That is the challenge for any op, not just ones you or I author.

Furthermore, you (and I) had the opportunity to start anew in this thread (or any future thread) and you've taken yourself out of the opportunity while blaming another. If you are consistent with your own metrics you'll eventually have no one with whom you can trade posts or the alternative will be you've compromised and contradicted your own standards. Neither is very scriptural practice. So I will respectfully suggest you get over yourself, not make things personal, and stick to the subject being discussed because THE best way to work an internet discussion board is to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. If you prove better at that than me then I will commend that performance but on this occasion, here in this thread..... you failed first. The better option would have been silence. Silence leaves the other poster nothing to do.


This op is about explaining the (supposed) mistake in Romans 5:7. If you keep the posts about that subject and I do the same then neither of us will have any problem or reason for complaint. So far, I find the evidence explaining the supposed mistake wanting but I sincerely hope you have more evidence by which the case for the tile will be made. If it exists then I look forward to reading it. Otherwise....

Because of your ad hominem attack in another thread, anything further from you will be ignored.

....is lame because it does nothing to prove the veracity of the op.

 

[Josheb]

I have. And only the open minded will research and appreciate it.

I trust that is not intended to insinuate anything untoward, especially after asserting a disdain for ad hominem .

Why don't you find the Philo reference persuasive? Or is the reference to Philo not accepted?