Replies

—> then - ADDED the word “ALONE” in 3:28-

If you translate, you add words - usually italicized for readability and understanding. I know this because I’ve translated (Greek to English) in seminary.

In Greek, as in many languages, a word for word translation, ignores the meaning of passages by leaving out the use of word position for emphasis, verb tenses, etc.

In your example of Romans 3:28, Luther translated by adding a word “alone” in order to convey the meaning of the text in few words.

First, here is the Greek…

27Ποῦ οὖν ἡ καύχησις; ἐξεκλείσθη. διὰ ποίου νόμου; τῶν ἔργων; οὐχί, ἀλλὰ διὰ νόμου πίστεως. 28λογιζόμεθα ‡γὰρ «δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει» ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου.

Here is the KJV TRANSLATION

“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”

Here is a Greek translation that includes the full force of the language.

“ Romans 3:28 (WUESTNT): Where then is the glorying? It was once for all excluded. Through what kind of a law? Of the aforementioned works? Not at all, but through the law of faith, for our reasoned conclusion is that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.“

Luther’s translation is accurate in fewer words.

Best.

If you translate, you add words - usually italicized for readability and understanding.
I know this because I’ve translated (Greek to English) in seminary.

Well yes of course, the English language is quite developed with regard to a more primitive Greek.
And you yourself know, that Koine Greek differs from todays modern Greek.
When "adding words" though in translation the ideal must be to do so without changing original meaning or context.

Is your translation infallible? Could it be incorrect? How do you know?

How do you know its authoritative enough for Doctrine?

Whether you agree or not, translations differ in meaning and substance;
and the modus of any translation turns out to be subjective to the translator.
This is certainly the case with Luther.
His motivation was clearly anti-Papist, and without any infallible authority.

Thats whats always missing when one jumps on the Luther bandwagon- and to note only about 50% (according to Pew) of Protestants actually do follow Luther as authoritative in these areas.
WHY is there not uniformity there?

Luther never explains why he thought the Greek in Romans
displayed or documented the need to be nuanced with “alone".
His reply was "that's the way he wants it, Papists be damned"(sic).
Well that's not very sound translationist ethos.

Now those have who come after him is the translation games
are relegated a starting point of then assuming what they're already trying to prove.

How can that process be authoritive for anyone, but the Translator?