ESV, NRSV, and Galatians 1:16
I found a subtle difference in the NRSV and ESV than with all other major translations in Galatians 1:15-16.
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and whocalled me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in orderthat I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; (ESV)
But when God, who from my mother’s womb set me apartand called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I could preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone. (HCSB)
I could not find any thing to suggest that “was pleased to reveal his Son to me” is correct. All of the other translations read, “was pleased to reveal his Son in me.” Does this mean the same thing? I have a hard time seeing that it does.
To say that the Son was revealed to Paul makes sense because Paul seems to be speaking about the miraculous incident on the road to Damascus where Paul speaks to the Son. But to say that the Son was revealed in Paul seems to indicate that Paul’s life now reflected the life of the Son from this point forward. As Paul would later write, “It is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”
I would like to know what led the ESV and NRSV to go with the word “to” rather than “in.” It certainly makes the verse easier to understand. But it may miss the point of the statement. Paul seems to be arguing in this context how he was advancing in Judaism and what caused him to leave. His life now revealed Jesus so that “they glorified God because of me” (Galatians 1:24).
Maybe I am reading too much into this, but it seems that the sentence changes based upon that one little word.
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
2 Comments so far2 Responses to “ESV, NRSV, and Galatians 1:16”
By submitting a comment here you grant Christian Monthly Standard a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at our discretion.
Joe
January 8, 2009 at 6:39 pm
What makes this even more interesting is does the ESV not footnote this with -
Greek ‘in’
If the Greek means ‘in’ according to them, why did they not use ‘in’?
The NET (which says ‘in’) has a little note about “Or ‘to me’; the Greek preposition á¼Î½ (en) can mean either, depending on the context.
Gary Zimmerli
January 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I looked it up in Blue Letter Bible and it says “in”, but also that it can mean by, or of, or to, etc. Kind of ambiguous, I’d say. Depends on the context, for sure.
I think you have a good point, Brent. If it’s translated as “to”, it seems to miss an important point, if Paul was indeed referring to the revelation of the Son “in” himself.