NLT and Galatians 3:16
I am studying Galatians this morning and came across, what I believe to be, a huge miss for the NLT. It occurs in Galatians 3:16 –
God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn’t say “to his children,” as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says “to his child” –and that, of course, means Christ. (NLT)
Compare with a traditional rendering -
Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. (NKJV)
Now I am not arguing for the traditional word “seed.” In fact, I think it is good to replace that word with something more understandable. The problem is with the translation of the Greek word, “sperma” (seed, NKJV). Every book I can find in my library says that sperma is a collective noun.
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: For the singular form has a collective significance and does, in fact, generally denote more than one person. The nearest English equivalent is the word “offspring.”
Truth Commentary: The noun is a collective noun, even as our English word is. The single “seed” can refer to a number of people (e.g., the seed of Abraham means the descendants of Abraham) or to one person (e.g., the seed of Abraham can mean one descendant of Abraham).
New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT): For the word translated seed in our version has a collective significance, also in the Hebrew and the Greek (cf. Rom. 4:13, 18, and Gal. 3:29), and it might be supposed, therefore that this ground alone hardly suffices to prove that but one descendant or one portion of the seed of Abraham was intended.
New Testament Commentary by William Hendriksen: Does not Paul know that even in the Hebrew the word seed is a collective noun, so that no plural is needed to indicate more than one? … And as to the Greek word for seed, namely, sperma, does the apostle not realize that this word also is a collective noun (Matt. 22:24; Rom. 4:18; Acts 7:6; 2 Cor. 11:22), so that spermata (seeds) would have been unnecessary in any case?
I am just trying to show that the word is a collective noun. “Child” as used by the NLT is not a collective noun and does not carry “a collective significance.” The problem reaches deeper because in Galatians 3:29 Paul argues that those who are Christ’s are “Abraham’s seed.” The collective noun is not merely identifying Christ but also the family/offspring that belongs to Christ. There are not multiple families/offspring that would be blessed, only Abraham’s family/offspring through Christ.
The ESV’s and NRSV’s use of “offspring” is probably the best word, as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary also argues for “offspring.”
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (ESV)
In any case, the rendering “child” by the NLT appears to be insufficient. The word “child” rules out the understanding of a collective of people being under consideration, which is clearly the case since Paul argues in Galatians 3:29 that we are part of that “seed,” “offspring,” or “family.”
Don't forget to browse Biblical Studies or The Bible or Translations.
Your Thoughts
2 Comments so far2 Responses to “NLT and Galatians 3:16”
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.
Keith Williams
February 25, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Brent,
I understand what you’re saying about sperma as a collective noun, but the other side of the issue is that the word “offspring” in English isn’t acutally a collective noun either. It is a word that has the same form for both singular and plural. “Offsprings” is not a word at all, whereas the plural spermasin is in fact a word in Greek.
This is an example of a place where there simply is no way to bring a piece of the original language over to English in translation. One option is to go with a non-English solution, as ESV/NRSV have done. Another option is to do what the NLT has done and sacrifice some of the connections in the original for clarity in translation. Neither one is necessarily wrong, but the choice has to be made, here and elsewhere. Something is lost either way.
Also, a close reading of those commentaries will reveal that scholars are pretty confounded by what Paul is doing in this verse anyway. His logic in 3:15-25 is notoriously difficult to pin down, and as you point out he uses the singular sperma with a collective sense in 3:29, even though his argument in 3:16 hinges on a grammatical distinction between singular and plural.
Translation is tricky business.
Brent Kercheville
February 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm
In my opinion, that is why I think the word “offspring” works. Offspring can denote one person or a group of people. It is not exclusively a collective noun, as you point out, but it can mean a collectivity. “Child” has no collective concept. It is always singular.
But I understand your argument and difficulty. It is hard to find an English word that captures this. “Offsprings” is not a word, so that is problematic to helping the reader understand.
This may not be sound enough to the original language, but what about the word “family” and “families?” The promise was not for many “families” but for one “family” which is Christ (or the family of Christ). Maybe that causes too much difficult with the phrase “who is Christ,” making it “which is Christ” or “which is Christ’s.”
There is no doubt that this is a difficult text. I think the translation needs to be a word that can be understood as a singular and as a collectivity because Paul seems to be making an argument based upon this nuance from Galatians 3:16 to 3:29. That is my difficulty with the translation “child” because it eliminates the collective possibility.
Thank you for your response.