Is the “If” in Romans 4:24 present in the original Greek. If not, why is that included in some translations?

Question

Romans 4:24(KJV) reads: “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;”

The Young’s Literal Translation of this verse reads :

Romans 4:24 (YLT) “but also on ours, to whom it is about to be reckoned -- to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead,”

In my brief search of the interlinear I didn’t see anything that necessitated “if” being used, but I am not an expert in Greek.

Could anyone contribute their answer to whether “if” should be there, or even if there is any true conditional grammar which necessitated, or validates that translation?

Thx

Matt

Answer 1

There are two predominant sets of Greek texts; the 'Received' (the basis of the Authorised Version and many others prior to it, including Young's 1898 and Metcalfe's 'The New Testament' of 2021), and the Revised (which modern translations from the late 1800s till today nearly all use). Neither sets of Greek texts have "if" in Romans 4:24. The A.V. should not have put "if" into that verse.

The undisputed Greek text of Romans 4:24 has been rendered in the Greek New Testament of Stevens (1550), with later various readings of editions by others, culminating in an Interlinear Literal Translation of the A.V. of 1611 as, "but also on account of us to whom it is about to be reckoned to those that believe on him who raised Jesus our Lord from among [the] dead".

Likewise, it is literally written as, "but also through us to whom it is about to be being reckoned to the [ones] believing upon the [one] having raised up Jesus the Lord of us out of dead [ones]". That is from the Westcott & Hort Revised text of 1881.

The Greek text of the Authorised Version of 1958 is an edition of the Received Text produced by Scrivener in 1895. It was published by Bagster in 1958. It is literally rendered as, "but also because of us to whom it is about to be reckoned to the [ones] believing on the [one] having raised Jesus the Lord of us out of [the] dead". HOWEVER, the English column has, "...IF we believe on him..." So, there is the divergence. It may have cropped up earlier; I do not know - but I saw it in my A.V. interlinear, 1984 impression.

Unless the translators have explained themselves regarding that divergence from the undisputed Greek text, we cannot say why they did that, and I certainly would not presume to know!

But let me conclude with the 2021 rendition of John Metcalfe, from verses 23 to 25 (to give the entire sentence). Metcalfe uses the Greek editions of Stephanus, 1550, and of Elzevir, 1624. Bear in mind that the 'him' in verse 23 speaks of Abraham:

"Now it was not written on account of him alone, that it was imputed to him, but also on account of us, to whom it is about to be imputed, to the ones believing on the one having raised Jesus our Lord from dead, who was delivered over because of our falls aside, and was raised because of our justification."

Answer 2

The undisputed Greek text of Rom 4:24 is:

ἀλλὰ καὶ δι' ἡμᾶς οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν = but also on account of us, to whom it is about to be credited, to those believing on the One having raised Jesus our Lord out from the dead

Note that the conditional preposition, "if" is absent from the text; it is also absent from most modern versions.

However, "if" is included in the KJV (the NKJV has corrected this). The reason for this is mysterious but might be explained by its presence in the Latin Vulgate which the KJV has a frequent tendency to do, even over the Greek text. Rom 4:24 is a perfect example of this.

The Clementine Latin text (1592) which the KJV often prefers is:

sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis, = But also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead (from the Douay Rheims, 1610)

Answer 3

I don't want to presume to get into the translator's heads, but I'll suggest what I think they're up against. This is why I wish translators would publish a companion book (set of books) to their translations that would answer all the "why did you translate Χ as Y" questions. The Tower of Babel incident made sure that translation is complex, so translation choices of the sacred text need explanation.

I think the issue is Paul's use of the verb μέλλω. For μέλλω, the LSJ has, in part:

to be destined or be likely to, indicating an estimated certainty or strong probability in the present, past, or future

So, there's a hint of contingency in the main verb. The YLT tries to bring out this contingency with its translation "it is about."

Also, one can notice in the OP there are not only differences between the two translations relative to the single word if, but also with the words that lead up to the if clause. The translators appear to have wrestled with how the dative participle interacts with the main verb and the dative personal pronoun (οἷς). If they change how to translate the participle, they have to change how to translate the previous phrase, and vice-versa. The wrestling is quite rational, to say the least. Anyone can see this wrestling by comparing several translations. That is, different people made different choices all seeking to accomplish the same thing.

So, while μέλλω is the main verb, the dative participle, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ("those who believe"), modifies it. These different pieces, especially as they interact with each other, are a bit of a challenge to get the mind wrapped around. The original Greek obviously can't mean that the obtaining of righteousness is only a possibility. That would completely obliterate Paul's whole argument. Paul states pretty clearly that Abraham certainly obtained righteousness, but he's just as clear that the obtaining was based on something. That's his paragraph level point. So, there's this interaction between the certainty of obtaining righteousness and the contingency of belief. These two elements form a semantic whole that has to be rendered in English. The Greek whole has meaning; the English whole has to strive to convey that same whole meaning.

How to do that is the question. And different translations have tackled this problem differently.

NIV: but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness —for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Note that I’ve bolded the emdash—it’s part of the translation of the participle. The NIV uses 'will' to convey the certainty and the 'emdash' to convey an emphatic contingency. That is, the crediting of righteousness is not for anyone; it's for "those who believe."

NLT: for our benefit, too, assuring us that God will also count us as righteous if we believe in him, the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

The NLT uses 'assuring' to convey the element of certainty, but uses 'if' to bring in the contingency.

NASB20: Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, to us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead

I've had to include verse 23 because the NASB doesn't convey very well that the "to us who believe" modifies "it will be credited". For me, the "to..." phrases sound parallel, as if it's all about what is written. And that's confusing to me.

Interestingly, the YLT (see the OP above) doesn't convey the certainty of obtaining righteousness as well as the less literal translations. It appears to push it off into the future. I think that goes against Paul's point.

So, translators are up against how to balance the phrase οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι ("to whom it will certainly be credited") with the participle, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ("that is, those who believe") that modifies it. As I see it, using 'if' is one possibility. But, that requires some care on how one translates the previous words that lead up to the participle.

Answer 4

Nobody knows, P40 only contains verses 1-8. The next earliest text is the Codex Vaticanus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_4

Answer 5

Translation isn't 1:1. The word "if" isn't there in the Greek partly because they could express this type of conditionality with the participle.

This is idiom. If Greek can demote a conditional down from a sub-clause into a participle, that's often what they preferred. As well as being a sub-clause and needing a marker-word to introduce it, their conditionals also involve a change of grammatical mood, which risks being misunderstood. Whereas a participle agrees with its noun and can carry most of the idea that would have been contained in a conditional clause's verb - without complicating the syntax.

For a Greek-reader "to us believing" more noticeably excludes those not believing, because they were used to participles being used that way.

And in this passage it's done very much in passing: to expand it back out into a conditional clause introduced by "ei" would distract too much from the point that was started at 4:23 "ouk egraphe... alla kai di' hemas." These two ideas introduced by hois and tois are extensions from that - clarifying it.

The conditionality isn't the author's point, the point is that the words weren't only written for us.

English translators have a dilemma between a conditional clause introduced by "if" (which is firmer than the original), or an English participle like YLT which is unidiomatic, or a relative clause like the NIV has "for us who believe in him" (which risks missing that part of the point of tacking this on is to gently remark on the conditionality)

This is the description-under-which God credits righteousness.

To us believing, God credits it.

That's upbeat, even motivational. Its converse "if we didn't believe, God wouldn't credit it" is unsaid. Moreso than in the English conditional. But it is still felt.

That's sufficient for the KJV's purposes. Its translators were experts and this time they came down on the side of using an "if". I suppose this might have been for theological reasons: the hazard of thinking the author was too blunt about the conditionality, versus the hazard of not recognizing it's there.