inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Rom. 3:9)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan (in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.) recommend the inclusive form (including the writer of the letter and the readers) but SIL International Translation Department (1999) chooses to recommend the exclusive form referring to only Paul himself.

sin

The Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”

  • Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
  • Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
  • Kaingang: “break God’s word”
  • Bariai: “bad behavior” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
  • Nias: horö, originally a term primarily used for sexual sin. (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 256)
  • Mauwake: “heavy” (compare forgiveness as “take away one’s heaviness”) (source: Kwan Poh San in this article )

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (Romans 3:9)

Following are a number of back-translations of Romans 3:9:

  • Uma: “So the summary [lit., leveling-off words] is like this: we Jews are not better than other people. For like I said earlier, all men are guilty because we all are sinners, both the Jews and also other people.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “So-then, don’t say that we (excl.) Yahudi are better in the sight of God than the tribes/nations not Yahudi, because that is not true. I have already made clear to you that all mankind, Yahudi or not Yahudi, alike sin habitually (lit. are addicted to sin).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “As for us (excl.) Jews, perhaps you’re thinking mistakenly that we are far better off than those people who are not Jews. However, that’s not true. I have taught you before, that as for all mankind, Jew or not Jews, all are doing evil.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “What then will we say? Is the status of the Jews in God’s estimation better than that of the Gentiles? No, because I have already said that sin rules all people, whether (lit. even) Jews or Gentiles.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “Now then, are the Jews much better than all the rest of the people? Such a word cannot be right. Because I have already said that Jews and people who are not Jews all have sin.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Romans 3:9

The first part of this verse, Well then, are we Jews in any better condition than the Gentiles? Not at all!, presents several exegetical problems. (1) The Greek verb (one word in Greek, but ten words in Good News Translation: are we Jews in any better condition than the Gentiles?) may be understood in one of three ways. Most scholars interpret this verb in the same sense as the Good News Translation (see Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, Phillips), but An American Translation* understands it in precisely the opposite sense (“are we Jews at a disadvantage?”; see also the alternative renderings in the Revised Standard Version and New English Bible). A third possibility of understanding this verb, though one not widely accepted, is represented in a footnote of the Jerusalem Bible (“what excuse then can we [Jews] offer?”). The problem with this third possibility is that the words rendered well then would have to be taken along with the main verb (with the meaning “what excuse then are we offering”), and the answer to this would have to be “none at all” (rather than not at all, as in the Greek). (2) The words rendered not at all may also mean “not altogether” (see New English Bible note “not in all respects”). The final decision as to exegesis should be made on the basis of what seems to fit the context best, and the exegesis represented by the Good News Translation, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, and Phillips seems to be most in keeping with the immediate as well as the overall context.

In verse 1 of this chapter Paul raised the question whether the Jews had any advantage over the Gentiles. His answer was Much, indeed, in every way! Paul now returns to that question and approaches it from a different point of view. He points out that even though God did trust his message to the Jews (v. 2), the Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. Viewed from this perspective, the Jews are not in any better condition that the Gentiles.

In addition to the complex exegetical difficulties involved in the first part of verse 9, there are a number of translational complications. In the first place, there is the transitional phrase well then, which is equivalent in some languages to “and now to return to the question,” “and what is the conclusion?” or “what can we really say?”

In the second place, we in the expression we Jews must be taken as exclusive in languages which make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural. Paul is obviously not including all of his audience in Rome, and though presumably he may be including part of his audience (since there are no doubt Jews among the believers in Rome), it is preferable in this type of context to use the exclusive first person plural.

In the third place, in any better condition may be rendered in some instances as “have a better place” or “are in a better position” (the reference here is clearly not to a condition of health). However, since the relation here is primarily one involving God, it may be necessary to specify this—for example, “better as far as God looks upon us” or “better in the eyes of God.”

In the fourth place, it may be necessary to change the question into a statement and incorporate the strong negative expression not at all as part of the initial statement—for example, “in summary then, we Jews are certainly not in any better condition than the Gentiles.”

I have already shown is in the Greek text a plural (“we”), but once again Paul uses the plural form as a reference to himself.

The final sentence of verse 9 may be treated as a reason for the first sentence and thus be introduced by a conjunction such as “for” or “because”—for example, “because I have already pointed out that Jews and Gentiles….”

The phrase under the power of sin is difficult to express in some languages, especially since power is highly abstract and sin refers primarily to events, not to some object. In some languages, however, one may use a phrase such as “all are controlled by sin” or “sin controls all people.” But in certain languages one cannot speak of sin controlling someone; it is only the desire to sin which can do this—for example, “all men are controlled by their desire to sin” or “men’s desire to sin commands them.”

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

SIL Translator’s Notes on Romans 3:9

Section 3:9–20

The Jews also are sinners

In this section, Paul used quotations from the Old Testament to show that the Jews sin against God. They are not better than the Gentiles. God will hold them responsible for their sins. Paul also said that when someone follows the law of Moses, that does not make God say he is righteous.

Here are other possible headings for this section:

Both Jews and Gentiles sin
-or-
No One is Righteous (New International Version)
-or-
Everyone has sinned

Paragraph 3:9–18

3:9a–b

Are we any better? Not at all: This is a rhetorical question and its answer. The rhetorical question causes the reader to think of what might be the answer. Paul then told what the answer was. Here are some ways to translate this:

• As a rhetorical question and its answer. For example:

Do we have any advantage? Not at all! (New International Version (2011))
-or-
are we Jews better than others? No! (New Century Version)
-or-
Is the status of the Jews in God’s estimation better than that of the Gentiles? No

• As a statement. For example:

We Jews are not better off, no, not at all.
-or-
We Jews have no advantage ⌊over the Gentiles⌋. No none at all.
-or-
The status of the Jews in God’s estimation is no better than that of the Gentiles. No.

Many Jews thought that they were better than the Gentiles/Greeks because they had God’s word and God chose them to be his people. Paul asked this question and answered “no” to show that Jews also were sinners.

3:9a

What then?: This is a rhetorical question. It causes the reader to think about what the answer might be. Paul used it to introduce the next question. Here are other ways to translate this question:

What does all this mean? (Contemporary English Version)
-or-
What shall we conclude then? (New International Version)
-or-
What then will we say?

we: Some English versions add the word “Jews” here. In 3:9c, Paul spoke of Jews and Greeks, so he would include himself with the Jews in this case.

any better: Here this phrase means “to have an advantage.” It compares one group with another and indicates that one is better than the other. See the examples above.

3:9b

Not at all: The Greek words are more literally “not certainly” or “not entirely.” But many English versions and scholars translate the Greek as Not at all (Berean Standard Bible) or “Certainly not” (NET Bible). Some English versions add the word “No,” perhaps for a more natural English expression. Here are other ways to translate these words:

By no means!
-or-
Certainly not! (NET Bible)

3:9c

For: This conjunction introduces an explanation of “Are we any better? Not at all!” in 3:9a–b. In some languages it is more natural to omit this conjunction and allow the context to imply that connection. For example:

we have already… (New Jerusalem Bible)

we: This pronoun refers to Paul as the writer of this letter (1:1). The style of using we when only one person is speaking or writing occurs in Greek literature and in the Bible.

It does not refer to the same people as “we” in 3:9a. You may want to use “I” to indicate that Paul was not including Jews here. For example:

I (Good News Translation)

have already made the charge: This phrase means “accused beforehand.” Paul said earlier in this letter that Jews and non-Jews are sinners. Now he reminded his readers that he said that. Here are other ways to translate this phrase:

have already accused (God’s Word)
-or-
said before that they were to blame
-or-
already said that…are all guilty (New Century Version)
-or-
already said that…all have sin

Greeks: The basic meaning of this word is “people who are from Greece.” But in the New Testament the word usually refers to anyone who is not a Jew. So it includes Romans and other non-Jewish peoples. In some languages a literal translation would wrongly refer only to people from Greece. If that is true in your language, you may want to:

• Use a more general word. For example:

Gentiles (Contemporary English Version)

• Translate the literal meaning and explain it in a footnote. Here is an example footnote:

This word in the New Testament usually refers to anyone who is not a Jew.

under sin: There are two ways to interpret the Greek phrase that the Berean Standard Bible translates as under sin :

(1) It means that all people are sinners. For example:

guilty of sin (New Century Version)

(New Century Version)

(2) It means that all people are under the power of sin. For example:

under the dominion of sin (New Jerusalem Bible)

(Revised Standard Version, New International Version (2011), Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Revised Edition, New Living Translation (2004), God’s Word, Contemporary English Version, Revised English Bible)

The Berean Standard Bible, New International Version (1984), English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, King James Version, and NET Bible translate literally, but the phrase under sin is not clear as to its exact meaning in English. It could mean interpretation (1) or (2). If a literal translation in your language allows for interpretation (1), you may want to translate that way.

But if a literal translation in your language will only follow interpretation (2), it is recommended that you follow interpretation (1), because the examples of under sin in 3:10–18 clearly refer to people responsible for their sin and not to sin controlling them. Also, interpretation (1) fits better with the Greek word that the Berean Standard Bible translates as “we have already made the charge,” as those responsible rather than being victims.

Here are other ways to translate this phrase according to interpretation (1):

are sinners
-or-
sin habitually

sin: This word refers to doing something that God said is wrong to do, or not doing something that God said they should do.

© 2020 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.

Commentaire sur la traduction de la lettre aux Romains 3.9

3.9-20

La Traduction œcuménique de la Bible ne divise pas le texte ici, mais la Bible en français courant choisit de mettre un sous-titre, Personne n’est juste, qui anticipe sur la citation de l’AT qui suit ( Rom 3.10). Les traducteurs pourront opter pour la division du texte qui convient le mieux dans leur langue.

Mais quoi ? est litt. « Quoi donc ? » (Nouvelle Bible Segond, Bible de Jérusalem, Osty-Trinquet). Cette formule de transition est typique du procédé du genre littéraire, diatribe, une « forme de dialogue » (Michel, p. 84) engagée avec des interlocuteurs supposés. Voir aussi « Quoi donc ? » ou « Que dirons-nous donc ? » ( Rom 3.1) et aussi Rom 4.1 ; Rom 6.1, Rom 6.15 ; Rom 7.7 ; Rom 8.31 ; Rom 9.14, Rom 9.19, Rom 9.30 ; Rom 11.7. La La Bible du Semeur propose une expression plus longue : « Que faut-il donc conclure ? » qui semble un peu trop formelle dans ce contexte.

avons-nous encore, nous Juifs, quelque supériorité ? : le grec exprime par un seul verbe ce que la Traduction œcuménique de la Bible traduit en sept mots et la Bible en français courant en huit mots, litt. « excellons nous ». Voir Rom 3.1. L’expression grecque peut être comprise de trois façons différentes. À l’actif, elle peut signifier « avons-nous… [une] supériorité », « sommes-nous… supérieurs » (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant). Mais la forme du verbe peut aussi être celle du passif en grec, ainsi « sommes-nous surpassés », c’est-à-dire, « sommes-nous dans une position inférieure », une interprétation qui n’est presque jamais adoptée. Une dernière possibilité serait de voir dans le verbe le sens de « prétexter », en faisant de « Quoi donc » le complément de ce verbe, ce qui donnerait, selon certains, « Quelle excuse pouvons-nous présenter ». Cependant, ces dernières suggestions sont peu probables et il est recommandé de suivre l’interprétation de la majorité, par exemple, « Nous Juifs, sommes-nous dans une meilleure situation que les non-Juifs ? » Comme en Rom 3.1, il vaut mieux éviter le mot « supérieur » et parler plutôt d’« avantage ».

nous Juifs est sous-entendu dans le texte original mais plusieurs versions le rendent explicite.

Absolument pas, litt. « non tout », réponse à la question que Paul pose. On pourrait dire « Pas du tout » (Bible en français courant, Bible de Jérusalem, La Bible du Semeur, Parole de Vie) ou « Certes non ». Voir aussi Rom 3.4, où une expression similaire est utilisée.

Car nous l’avons déjà établi : tous, Juifs comme Grecs, sont sous l’empire du péché. Paul a déjà évoqué les avantages d’être Juif, y compris le fait que Dieu leur a confié sa loi et ses promesses ( Rom 3.2). Mais maintenant il montre quelque chose qui unifie les Juifs et les non-Juifs : le fait que tous, Juifs comme Grecs, sont sous l’empire du péché.

Car nous l’avons déjà établi : la phrase commence par gar qui semble introduire une raison. Comme en Rom 2.8, Paul utilise probablement le pluriel nous pour se désigner lui-même. Il a établi les faits qui précèdent. Certaines versions disent « J’ai déjà démontré » (Bible en français courant).

Le verbe établi ne se trouve qu’ici dans tout le NT. Il veut dire « démontrer d’avance », ainsi, « Nous avons, en effet, déjà démontré… » (La Bible du Semeur) ou « puisque nous venons de prouver » (Osty-Trinquet). Quand Paul dit qu’il l’a déjà établi, il parle de ce qu’il a dit dans ses propos figurant en Rom 1.18– Rom 2.24.

tous, Juifs comme Grecs, sont sous l’empire du péché : en parlant des deux groupes : les Juifs et les Grecs, Paul pense certainement à la distinction Juif et non-Juif. Voir Rom 1.14, Rom 1.16. Ces deux groupes, c’est-à-dire l’humanité réunie, sont litt. « sous péché ». Beaucoup de versions suivent l’image en grec qui présente une personne comme « sous la domination » (Bible en français courant) ou sous l’empire du péché (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). La Parole de Vie utilise une expression idiomatique qui rend bien l’idée : « sont tous sous le pouvoir du péché ». Si ce type d’expression n’existe pas dans la langue cible, on pourrait opter pour d’autres expressions, par exemple, « le péché domine tous les gens, les Juifs comme les non-Juifs ». C’est la première fois que le nom péché apparaît dans cette lettre, mais pour le verbe, voir Rom 2.12. Dans beaucoup de langues, il faudra parler de « faire le mal » ou du « désir du faire le mal ».

Source: Margot, Jean-Claude & Zogbo, Lynell. La lettre aux Romains – Manuel de traduction – Commentaire linguistique et exégétique de la Bible. Alliance biblique universelle, 2021.