Properly understood, I think both translations are correct.

Fig.A, Luther's Bible

This post deals with translation of Luther and the KJV  on passages like Gal 2:16 from the Greek. This topic deals with "faith in Jesus" or "faith of Christ". Is one more "correct" than the other? Or, both are correct depending on understanding?

Before proceeding, please be reminded of the disclaimer I have in this blog, shown to the right of this page. I make another disclaimer that I am no NT Greek expert but I did have university training on it and thus can vet what scholars are saying, and that English is not my native language. Thus please consider - caveat emptor.

This is a result of my reflection and research on this passage, thus far.

Fig. B, Luther's Translation Gal 2:16

Believe me though, in this post, you do not need to have full Greek knowledge to understand what is going on in the mind of the translators.

Fig. C, KJV Gal 2:16

In Fig B, below I show how Luther's Bible translated Galatians 2:16. I highlighted the passage in question. Luther's German says "Glauben an Jesum Christum", in English "faith in Jesus Christ".

In Fig C, we show how the KJV translated this phrase w my highlighting, "faith of Christ". KJV is not the only one which translates this passage in such a way. The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims translates it the same way, and a few other translations too.

In the Textus Receptus, this comes from the phrase δια πιστεως ιησου χριστου. 

Translating word for word, first without respect to conjugation we have δια is "through",  then πιστεως is "faith", then as we can discern  ιησου χριστου is "Jesus Christ". This πιστεως is in the so called genitive. Genitives are ordinarily gives the notion of possession. Should this be translated "faith of Christ"? Meaning the faith that belongs to Christ? Then why did Luther translated this to be "faith in Christ". Was he wrong? In fact, some blame Luther for influencing the many English translations we now have this way., ie the use of IN Christ. I saw one complaint on this.

I am not here to defend Luther, just the facts.

This boils down on how to treat this genitive - is it subjective, ie, the faith that belongs to Christ or is it objective, the object of this faith is Christ? The translator seeing this has to decide the best way to render its meaning.

Looking at the literal translation as much as we can, reflect for a minute the meaning of --- the faith that belongs to Christ ie faith of Christ, did not Jesus say this -- John 14:1 - you believe in God believe also IN me? In other words, where does your faith belong, is it not supposed to belong to Christ? Hence, if so, "faith IN Christ", ie Luther's translation give it out clearly too. That is not a bad translation as the context also bears this out - see "even we have believed in Jesus Christ" , thus faith IN Christ is OK rendition.

Let me now illustrate this rendition from a quote from Thomas Edison using similar language.

Fig D. Edison Quote

Please read the context of what Edison said about his mother. Note the 2nd to the last line - "My mother is the making of me". Did Edison make his mother? In effect, the subject is Edison, did he create his mother? No. In the context he meant his mother was the cause of him being in the right path, it was his mother who MADE him this way, thus it was his mother as the subject and "me" ( Edison) the object. His mother made him for what he is today. 

In conclusion, properly understanding the meaning of this genitive construction, both IN Christ and OF Christ are correct.

Why I now go for Mere Christianity

 

C. S. Lewis wrote the book Mere Christianity, as an apology for the soundness and truthfulness of the Christian faith. Lewis was Anglican but he was not defending the Anglican version or approach to Christianity, he was defending all of Christianity. So what did Lewis mean by 'mere Christianity'?

By this, he meant the fundamental essential orthodox beliefs in order for one to be called a Christian, a follower of Christ.

My friend, do you trust Jesus as your Saviour and Lord?  Then you got my good will as a brother or sister in Christ. You do not have to share my label or brand of Christianity, for me to extend that good will to you.

 1 jOHN 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love his brother remains in death.

In the 1990s while I was in ministry and taking a degree in Religious Studies, I happened to have  Prof Greg Horsley as my Classic and Koine NT Greek teacher. Horsley is the editor of a multivolume book New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity.  

While I was a student, Prof Horsley told me this story he found in the early documents, I am not sure if he saw this in the inscriptions or in a papyri, probably the latter.

He told the story of two Christians who were about to be burned alive by a Roman soldier. These two were tied facing each other. One of them asked the Roman soldier if they be not tied facing each other because he believed the other one was a heretic. The Roman soldier obliged to tie them behind each other. Then, he proceeded to burn them anyway.

This story has stucked with me upto this day. I forget if Prof Horsley was trying to illustrate a point with me there, but I definitely formed the moral to that story.

In the last days, as stated in Mk 13 and similar passages, when the secular world goes after Christians, their persecutors will not care what label/brand/denomination of Christianity they come from, they will get "torched" anyway. They will not care, they will inflict the same suffering upon them no matter what  label they identify with. There is a pre-taste of this in the life and testimony of the sainted Rev Richard Wurmbrand, founder of Voice of the Martyrs.

For this reason, I accept with open arms, any one who is just a mere Christian.

Pseudo-Christianity, still salvation by works

 

I am just going to express an observation.

It is evident that in this world, there are those who claim the Bible as authority for their faith. I observed too that these groups do attack the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is their common target.

Just a disclaimer: Please note, I do not deem to protect the RCC, I am a classical Evangelical Protestant.

However, they would criticise Roman Catholic practices like praying to the saints, praying the rosary, doing novenas and thousands more. They have claims of its corruption, pointing to how such practices can never be found in Scripture.

In other words, they are bad works not the real work that should be done.

The good works some of them claim go like this... do not eat pork, do not have blood transfusion, worship not on a Sunday but on this day, do not believe Jesus is the divine Son of God, be baptized in our church group,  etc, etc.

In the end, it seems to me, they are saying those RCC works are not the good works you should do but these good works that we have listed, by our group, are the good works you should do to be saved.

Thus, salvation by their teaching, is again by works and not by faith alone through the finished work of Christ alone.