TC’s comments on 1 Peter 3 prompted me to look up a few verses and I came across another example of the HCSB’s alliterative translation:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21)
Of course, this is preserving the KJV’s translation of this phrase, something that none of the other translations I consulted do. Most use a variant of “[...] not as a removal of dirt from the body [...]“, which clarifies that Peter is not talking about a physical washing in comparing baptism to Noah’s salvation through the flood in vss. 18-20.
[Aside: the NET Bible's footnotes clarify that there are no moral connotations to "flesh" (Gk. sarx) here, despite Strong's definition of the Greek rhupos ("dirt, i.e. (morally) depravity:-filth"), but whether a less resourceful reader would be confused and substitute perhaps "sinful nature" (cf. NIV) in their reading, I couldn't say.]
The HCSB has been noted for its modern English grammar, compared to the ESV for example, but it’s worth also noting that it retains that touch of the traditional by preserving or recalling the KJV either through small phrases like this one or as alternative translations in its frequent footnotes.
18 Comments
I am concerned by this translation because, in English although probably not in the original Greek, it implies that the filth in question is an attribute of the flesh rather than something adhering to it externally. That is, it implies that flesh is intrinsically filthy. That is not of course the author’s intention.
Agreed - a simple change like “the filth on the flesh” would have perhaps alleviated this, while retaining most of the language (less the alliterative soft “f” in “of”).
Thanks for the link, El. I’ll have to agree with Peter.
Both the NIV and TNIV have “body” for sarx and treat it as a genitive of separation, “from the body,” which I think is the correct call on the genitive.
Rhupos, on the other, I think is a objective genitive, being the object of the verbal apothesis, “removal.”
How about “not the removal of the filth from the flesh…”
Makes you wonder how much clearer Paul could have been if he wasn’t so busy trying to clarify fleshy things for those darn gnostic Greeks…
I still wonder about the Strong definition of rhupos vs. the NET note: is it moral dirt or not?
El, here’s the problem with rhupos: its only used here in the NT. Dr. Jobes cites only four occurrences in the LXX, with three of its meaning being “moral filth.”
Good one on Paul, btw.
More alliteration,and it brings out the idea of the Greek genitive properly, but we still have Peter’s legitimate objection to deal with on the choice of “filth.”
Thanks for the note on the scarcity of rhupos. Do you have the verse citations for the LXX by chance?
Sorry about that. Where is my scholarship? Job 9:31; 11:15; 14:4; Isa 4:4.
ES, good food for thought. I think the T/NIV got it right with “dirt from the body”.
TC, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of the LXX. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.
Does not compute.
@Kevin: I think the T/NIV got it right with “dirt from the body”.
The T/NIV and most other translations. Only the HCSB and N/KJV (and ASV) have the particular “filth/flesh” combination. Several translate sarx as “flesh” here, but use “dirt” for rhupos to clarify that the context is physical uncleanliness rather than moral depravity.
I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.
I assume, as evidently does Stephen, that you meant “the Hebrew” for Paul’s main text?
TC, this makes me wonder about the accuracy of the LXX. I assume Paul would have also read the LXX but he probably had the Greek as his main text.
Kevin, here’s the encouraging thing about the LXX: even though it’s not regarded as an inspired work, the NT writers made good use of it.
Biblical scholars are still trying to figure out how Paul used extant translations. It took John Calvin scholars about 200yrs to realize that he did most of his own translation of the Bible.
If the use of rhupos is so scarce, I think chances may be greater that Peter meant to imply dirt dirt rather than moral filth. But the saying “dirty old man!” also carries the same connotation as moral filthy. The context in which the word is used can make all the difference.
ES and Stephen, yes, Paul would have used the Hebrew. But Paul likely would have also used the Greek LXX too. And perhaps Jesus too.
TC, being that we protestants don’t believe the LXX is inspired and canonical, Paul and Jesus read from it and even perhaps quoted from it. That really gets me.
@Kevin: being that we protestants don’t believe the LXX is inspired and canonical, Paul and Jesus read from it and even perhaps quoted from it. That really gets me.
I see it as liberating. We spend so much time analyzing manuscript sources and obsessing about supposed textual inerrancy when the example has been provided by Christ himself that the meaning is far more important than the preservation of individual physical strokes of the law.
If there is greater support for functional translation than the endorsement and use of the LXX by God himself, I don’t know it.
Kevin, this comment from El is my reply too:
I see it as liberating. We spend so much time analyzing manuscript sources and obsessing about supposed textual inerrancy when the example has been provided by Christ himself that the meaning is far more important than the preservation of individual physical strokes of the law.
If there is greater support for functional translation than the endorsement and use of the LXX by God himself, I don’t know it.
Well put, El.
@ES: Amen brother, I agree with you.
Nice observation, not sure if I would have caught it.