Musings... Dr. Black's BLOG
Comments on Translation Issues Affecting the ISV®
[Introductory Thoughts]
[The ISV Heritage: Where We Got our English Bible]
[The Poetry of the International Standard Version]
[Zechariah 12:10 — Look Upon Me Whom They Pierced]
[The Disciple Whom Jesus Kept on Loving?]
[John 3:16 — God Loved the World So Much!?!]
[John 18:4 — Whom Sweet Whom]
[John 21:15-17 — Sloppy Agape]
[Acts 2:38 — Baptism for Forgiveness?]
[1 Corinthians 13:4-7 — An Ode to Love]
[Ephesians 5:32 — Mustering Mystery out of Musterion]
[Philippians 1:27-30 — Good Citizens]
[1 Timothy 3:2 — "Teachable" or "Able to Teach"]
[Titus 1:12 — On Poets & Liars: When is Poetry Poetry?]
[Hebrews 1:1 — Alliteration in the Bible]
[Hebrews 6:1 — "Press on" or "Be Carried Along"?]
[Hebrews 12:1-2 — Too Much Lettuce?]
[James 1:17 — Good Giving?]
[James 2:14 — Can Faith Save?]
Baptism for Forgiveness?
In mid-September 2005, a
perceptive reader of the ISV New Testament wrote us this email message:
In
v1.0.0 Acts 2;38 reads as follows: "Peter answered them,
'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
since your sins are forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a
gift.'"
In v1.3.0 that verse reads as follows: "Peter
answered them, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the
Holy Spirit as a gift.'"
Why the different reading? Were new manuscripts found, or are there new translators on the team, or is there some other
explanation? There seems to be quite a difference between the two
readings.
The change in the ISV
text was made to correct an inadvertent divergence in that passage from our
Principles of Translation. Specifically, it is our policy that when the
text of the original language contains an ambiguity, we strive to render the
English text with an equivalent ambiguity.
Our reading of Acts
2:38 in v1.0 is accurate in that baptism follows acknowledgment of
forgiveness: hence our rendering originally read: "Be baptized, since your sins..."
However, strictly speaking, the Gk. text does read "for the forgiveness". We
elected to go back to a more literal reading of the Gk. text. That's
not to mean that the more literal reading doesn't say baptism follows acknowledgment of forgiveness.
Quite the opposite:
Think of the wanted posters that you see in the Post Office. When the FBI
says the guy in the photo is "WANTED FOR BANK ROBBERY", do you think the
sign is saying that the FBI wants the guy because he has already committed a
bank robbery or because they want him to commit a bank robbery in the
future? The Greek (and v1.3 of the ISV) both say
to be baptized "for the forgiveness" in exactly the same way as does the
WANTED FOR BANK ROBBERY poster. The man is wanted (and baptized) for the
same reasons: the robbery and the forgiveness have both already occurred, so
to speak.
To sum up, BOTH
readings in v1.0 and v1.3 say baptism occurs because the sins have been
forgiven. The issue isn't our clarity in the English of the ISV in v1.0
(which is certainly more clear from a doctrinal perspective) but rather the
question of faithfulness to the clarity of the original Greek, which does
contain the "for the forgiveness" phrase.
The COT believes that
the text of Acts 2:38 does not
teach baptismal regeneration. Then again, neither does the ISV in either
v1.0.0 or in v1.3.0
teach this doctrine. The ISV, v1.3.0, teaches we are to be baptized
"for the forgiveness," just as the WANTED FOR BANK ROBBERY poster says the
FBI wants the guy because he's robbed the bank!
When in doubt, the ISV
attempts NOT to make doctrinal conclusions, but rather attempts to translate
the same ambiguity in the original that's there in the Greek. If you check
the Greek, you'll see that v1.3.0 of the ISV reflects this much better than
v1.0.0 does. That's why we changed it to reflect this somewhat more general
rendering. The ISV Committee on Translation has decided to leave the
exposition of this verse to the pastoral teachers who use it, who should be
able to read Greek anyway, if they're dedicated to that kind of expositional
detail.
|
