Second Timothy 1.8-12

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.8-12

8 μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
8 And so do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord,
    μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ,
    or of me his prisoner,
ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ
but suffer together with me for the gospel
    κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ,
    according to the power of God,
        9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ,
        9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling,
            οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν
            not according to our works
            ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν,
            but according to his own purpose and grace,
                τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν
                which has been granted to us
                    ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
                    in Christ Jesus
                    πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων,
                    from times eternal,
                10 φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν
                10 and now has been revealed
                    διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
                    through the appearance of our Savior Christ Jesus,
                    καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον
                    who indeed abolished death
                    φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν
                    and brought to light life and immortality
                        διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου
                        through the gospel
                            11 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος,
                            11 into which I was appointed herald and apostle and teacher.

12 διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω·
12 For this reason I also suffer these things,
ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι,
but I am not ashamed,
    οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα
    for I know whom I have believed
    καὶ πέπεισμαι
    and I am convinced
        ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι
        that he is quite capable to guard my deposit
            εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν.
            until that day.

Comments

Verse 8

οὖν] Typically translated "therefore", this usually relies on preceding context and signals a shift to distillation of a principle or inference (cf. Runge, LDGNT Glossary, "principle"). Thus, based on vv. 6-7, the action specified in v. 8 is appropriate.

μὴ .. μηδὲ] "not … neither". Note the negation structure. "Do not be ashamed of … neither [be ashamed of] …" Several times, negatives will point to an upcoming contrast. This portion sets one side of the contrast ("Don’t be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, neither [be ashamed of] me his prisoner"); it will be contrasted with the item that Paul desires to make prominent.

ἀλλὰ] "but", specifying the second portion (thus the more prominent portion of) the contrast. Instead of being ashamed (thus denying or ignoring) the testimony of the Lord; instead of being ashamed of Paul, Paul invites Timothy to join with him to "suffer together with me" for the gospel.

κατὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ] prepositional phrase, reminding of the power given by God, stated in v. 7 above.

Verse 9

τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ] participial clause functioning like a relative clause with immediately previous θεοῦ (God) as antecedent; "who saved us and called us with a holy calling".

οὐ κατὰ .. ἀλλὰ κατὰ] here prepositional phrases are contrasted with some correction. In this extended structure (based on a relative clause), Paul reminds Timothy that God does not call based on one’s own works but instead calls "according to his own purpose and grace". As such, this is somewhat reminiscent of Titus 3.5.

τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν] another participial clause, again functioning like a relative clause ("which has been granted to us") which takes preceding "grace" as antecedent. This is followed by two prepositional phrases, each providing further circumstance to the action "being granted".

Verse 10

φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν] φανερωθεῖσαν (has been revealed) matches the preceding δοθεῖσαν (has been granted). Note also the temporal contrast between the preceding "from times eternal" with the current "now". Here δὲ is the hinge of the contrast, and as with other contrasts, the second portion (after δὲ) is the more prominent/salient. The grace had been granted from times eternal, but now it has been revealed. This is followed by a prepositional phrase providing circumstance to how the revealing has taken place.

καταργήσαντος μὲν .. φωτίσαντος δὲ] a somewhat standard μὲν/δὲ structure, again highlighting contrast, this time between death and "life and immortality". Again, note how "life and immortality" are highlighted by the structure.

διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου] prepositional phrase, modifying the previous participle (brought to light … through the gospel)

Verse 11

εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ] prepositional phrase with relative clause as its object, "into which I was appointed". This is referencing the gospel (cf. Marshall). Also see 1Ti 2.7, which has similar language.

Verse 12

διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν] In the translation, I’ve rendered this as starting a new sentence, even though NA27 punctuation does not indicate this. Here I follow Marshall (Pastoral Epistles (ICC), p. 708). The repeated transitional phrase (cf. 2Ti 1.6) is to attractive to me and I can’t ignore it, particularly since I see this as the end of a minor section/clause group. The repetition of the same phrase from verse 6, plus the reactivation of the concept of suffering (cf. 2Ti 1.8, "don’t be ashamed … but suffer together with me") speak for this reading, from my perspective.

ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι] "but I am not ashamed" another contrast with ἀλλὰ; here again recalling vocabulary from 2Ti 1.8 (v. 8 μὴ ἐπαισχυνθῇς). Unlike v. 8, here not being ashamed is actually the salient part.

οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα] "for I know whom I have believed", here offering support for the position of not being ashamed. After the declaration of not being ashamed, Paul explains further why he is not ashamed.

Second Timothy 1.6-7

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.6-7

6 Διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ,
6 For this reason I remind you to rekindle the gift of God,
   ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ
   which is in you
       διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου.
       through the laying on of my hands.

7 οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ θεὸς
7 For God has not given us
   πνεῦμα δειλίας
   a spirit of cowardice
ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως
but of power
   καὶ ἀγάπης
   and love
    καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ.
   and self-discipline.

Comments

[Note: whether all comments will be formatted like this, of this nature, or of similar depth is unknown. I’m just writing about what I see at the time. — RB]

Verse 6

Διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν] points back to the previous section.

ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ] a relative clause. The antecedent is "the gift of God", this further defines the "gift of God".

διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου] a prepositional phrase, functioning adverbially to provide further circumstance to the primary verb (ἐστιν) of the clause. Thus the prepositional phrase describes how the gift of God came to be in/with Timothy: through the agency of Paul’s "laying on of hands". On "laying on of hands", see also 1Ti 4.14.

Verse 7

γὰρ] Indicates this clause offers support or strengthens the current argument (preceding discourse). Cf. Runge Discourse Grammar. Paul is offering support (strengthening his argument) for his reminder of verse 6, for Timothy to "rekindle his gift".

γὰρ .. ἀλλὰ .. ] Statements using ἀλλὰ involve the contrasting of two options, with the emphasized or more important (more salient) option in the second place, following ἀλλὰ.* The second option corrects or replaces the first option. In this instance, Paul uses the strawman of the spirit God didn’t give ("a spirit of cowardice") to contrast the spirit God did give: one of power, love and self-discipline. This is what Paul wants Timothy to hear: The "spirit" that both he and Timothy have is one of power, love and self-discipline; it is not one of cowardice. This sets up where Paul next goes in verse 8.


* I’ve written extensively on the discourse function of ἀλλὰ, see particularly this paper for background, definitions and conclusions.

Second Timothy 1.1-5

[This is part of a running series on translating Second Timothy. See the introductory post for more information — RB]

Phrasing/Translation: 2Ti 1.1-5

1 Παῦλος
1 Paul
    ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
    an apostle of Christ Jesus
        διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ
        through the will of God
        κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς
        according to the promise of life
            τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
            which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ,
2 To Timothy, my beloved son.

χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη
Grace, mercy, peace 
    ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
    from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 Χάριν ἔχω τῷ θεῷ,
3 I offer thanks to God,
    ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει,
    whom I serve (as did my forebears) with a clear conscience,
    ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν
    as I have constant memories of you
    ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσίν μου νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας,
        in my prayers night and day,
        4 ἐπιποθῶν σε ἰδεῖν,
        4 longing to see you,
            μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων,
            remembering your tears,
            ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ,
            so that I might be filled with joy,
        5 ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως,
        5 having recollections of your sincere faith,
            ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν
            which dwelt
                πρῶτον ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ,
                first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice,
                πέπεισμαι δὲ
                and now I have been convinced
                    ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί.
                    that it also [dwells] in you.

About the Phrasing/Translation section

The phrasing/translation section is intended to give a feel of the structure and flow of the section without necessarily completely and consistently documenting relationships between each portion. Indentations typically indicate clauses that are in some way subordinate to or dependent on the clause that precedes (or, in some cases, follows); but the indentation also represents prepositional phrases. Many of these are judgment calls and could be interpreted at least one more way. For example, the conglomeration of infinitive and participial clauses in verses 3-5 could be represented a few different ways — and it is, just check Mounce, Marshall and Knight; then look at OpenText.org, and after that check out the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (LDGNT).

The translation portion is largely dependent on a previous translation I did in 2003 or 2004, though I will be making some changes to the translation along the way. Even the translation that ends up here is not final. I’ll be revisiting it (particularly the rendering of connectives) later if/when I begin to write about the discourse structure of the letter (my ultimate goal).

The sections themselves will be (largely) taken from Ray Van Neste’s work, Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, with some extra secret sauce from Runge’s LDGNT and OpenText.org.

Of course, one reason for putting this work on this blog is for feedback. Depending on the busy-ness of my schedule I may or may not respond directly, but I will read and consider it. So please do feel free to comment.

Translating Second Timothy

I think I’m going to begin something that I may or may not finish. I always hesitate announcing a new “series” because I may never finish the series. But, I find myself thinking about Second Timothy now, and thinking about an analysis and discussion of the text.


One initial step I take in thinking about a text is to translate it. But I don’t just translate, I also think about the structure of the text. When I did this for the Didache awhile back, I ended up with what I called a “Phrasal Interlinear“. I’m starting the same thing with Second Timothy. I may or may not finish. (Update: Finished on May 3, 2009.) The good news is that I already translated Second Timothy five or six years ago, though it needs some work.


Posts



Consulted Resources


I’d be stupid not to consult existing resources for this sort of thing. And there are many. Here are a few of the best. Thankfully, I have all of these (except for Comfort’s new textual commentary) in Logos Bible Software.


Texts


Runge, Steven. The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Logos Bible Software. (Uses UBS4 text as primary, includes in-context glosses from the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament)


Porter, O’Donnell, Reed, Tan. The OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament: Clause Analysis. Logos Bible Software.


Commentaries


Knight, George. $amz(0802823955 Pastoral Epistles) (NIGTC). Eerdmans.


Marshall, I. Howard. $amz(0567084558 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles). T&T Clark.


Mounce, William. $amz(0849902452 Pastoral Epistles) (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46). Thomas Nelson


Towner, Philip. $amz(0802825133 The Letters to Timothy and Titus) (NICNT). Eerdmans


Lexicons


BDAG, LSJ, Louw Nida.


Monographs


Van Neste, Ray. $amz(0567083373 Structure and Cohesion in the Pastoral Epistles). Sheffield Academic.


Text-Critical Material


NA27 apparatus


Comfort, Philip W. $amz(141431034X New Testament Text and Translation Commentary). Tyndale.


Metzger, Bruce W. $amz(1598561642 Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament). United Bible Societies

"I have thanks" in First and Second Timothy

One of the catchword arguments that P.N. Harrison uses in his book $amz(143651214X The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles) has to do with how Paul usually expresses thanks. Here’s Harrison:

In expressing his thankfulness to God, Paul consistently uses the word ευχαριστεω (Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 2Co 1.11; Eph 1.16; 5.20; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; 2Th 1.3; 2.13; Phm 4); this author never writes that word, but uses instead the Latinism χαριν εχω (= gratiam habeo) 1Ti 1.12; 2Ti 1.3. (Harrison, 28-29)

I’ve always been intrigued by this. First, because Harrison assumes his conclusion in the first sentence where he mentions what "Paul consistently uses"; second because he’s right about the discrepancy (not Pauline authorship). The Pastorals don’t use ευχαριστεω in thanksgiving sections, other Paulines do.

Why bring this up? This morning I began digging back into my translation of Second Timothy, and I ran into 2Ti 1.3, where χαριν εχω is used. And I have a few thoughts on this now.

Some of Harrison’s cited instances (Eph 1.16; 5.20) use ευχαριστεω as a participle in a series of modifications, not as the primary verb. His 2Co 1.11 instance may implicitly refer to God as receiving the thanks, but is doesn’t explicitly state it. And note that 2Th 1.3; 2.13 use ευχαριστεω as an infinitive, modifying the verb οφειλομεν. Again, not an exact syntactic parallel for the phenomenon under discussion. Note also that Harrison missed 1Co 14.18, which should be added to his list.

Of course, I’d suppose that Harrison (and others) would see these as evidence that Ephesians and Second Thessalonians aren’t Pauline either. In any case, the are not direct examples of the phenomenon he is trumpeting, so they shouldn’t be listed as evidence for or against his lexical/syntactic argument here.

In the non-Pastorals usage at the head of thanksgiving sections, ευχαριστεω always takes "God" as its complement: "I give thanks to God". More specifically, it is ευχαριστεω τω θεω. In 1Ti 1.12, it is not "God" that Paul thanks with χαριν εχω, it is "the one who has empowered me, Christ Jesus our Lord". Still in the dative, but not quite apples-to-apples.

But that still leaves 2Ti 1.3, which has χαριν εχω τω θεω (compare to ευχαριστεω τω θεω in Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 14.18; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; Phm 4). This is actually Harrison’s stronger counterexample (though he doesn’t mention it).

My thoughts? Well, εχω (present active indicative first-person) + dative is not unknown in Paul (Ro 12.4; 15.17; 1Co 2.16; 7.25; 8.1; 9.4, 5, 6, 17; 11.16; 12.21; 2Co 3.4; 4.7; Gal 6.10; Eph 1.7; 2.18; 3.12; Col 1.14; 2.1; 2Th 3.9), so it is a structure that Paul could’ve used. I haven’t examined these instances so I don’t know exactly what contexts they occur in, if they take references to the deity as complements, etc.

But one interesting item that comes up is Luke 12.50 (yes, Luke). I’ve always been enamored with the theory that Luke was Paul’s amanuensis for the Pastorals, and that his role may have even been closer to co-author. Luke 12.50 is as follows:

NA27: βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ
ESV: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

This is mildly interesting to me because the same thing could be said a different way. In fact, it is said a different way in Mark 10.38:

NA27: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι;
ESV: Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

In other words, in Luke’s rewrite of this idea (sure, I think Luke used Mark as source (cf. Lu 1.1-2), but I also think Q is a load of hooey) he uses "I have a baptism" instead of "I am baptized". He uses an εχω construction instead of the plain verb.

I realize it’s a reach built on next to nothing, but hey, this is a blog post so why not? Could Luke have done the same thing with Paul’s words? Paul says ευχαριστεω τω θεω; Luke writes χαριν εχω τω θεω. Same idea, same stuff being communicated, just a different way of doing it. As Witherington posits, it’s the voice of Paul but the hand of Luke.

I’ve always seen the amanuensis argument (whether it is Luke or not) as a strong one in favor of Pauline authorship/responsibility because we know that Paul uses an amanuensis in other letters. Many of the "style" arguments that seem so valid in challenging Paul’s authorship can probably be seen (I’d say better seen) as pointing to different amanuensis situations, not to mention different roles of the amanuensis, influence of listed (and perhaps unlisted) co-authors, genre and the target of the letter.

Anyway, this is too long and I’ve gotta go. Perhaps more on this later (but perhaps not).

Comfort, Metzger, Omanson, NET and Westcott & Hort

[NB: Cross-posted from my personal blog, ricoblog. — RB]

In a post on my personal blog I threatened to do some comparisons between Comfort, Metzger, Omanson’s rewrite of Metzger and (where applicable) Westcott & Hort’s "Notes on Selected Passages". First, the list of books:

  • Comfort: $amz(141431034X New Testament Text and Translation Commentary) (Tyndale, 2008)
  • Omanson: $amz(1598562029 A Textual Guide to the New Testament) (German Bible Society, 2006) This is a "geared towards translators" edition of Metzger’s Textual Commentary.
  • Metzger: $amz(1598561642 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition) (United Bible Societies, 1994)
  • NET: $amz(0737500611 NA27/NET Diglot) (Biblical Studies Press, 2004). I realize that the non-diglot NET has more notes and may have greater coverage, but the diglot is the only edition I have to hand at present.
  • Westcott & Hort: $amz(159244198X The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix) (Vol. 2). (MacMillan & Co., 1896)

In this post, I’ll provide a list of readings covered in the book of First Timothy. I may expand upon some of the readings in subsquent posts. In this list, the following abbreviations are used: C = Comfort; O = Omanson; M = Metzger; NET = NET Bible TC notes; WH = Westcott & Hort

  • 1Ti 1.1: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 1.4a: C O M
  • 1Ti 1.4b: C O M NET WH
  • 1Ti 1.12: C
  • 1Ti 1.15: O M
  • 1Ti 1.17a: C O M
  • 1Ti 1.17b: C M NET
  • 1Ti 2.1: C O M
  • 1Ti 2.7a: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 2.7b: C
  • 1Ti 3.1 segmentation: O
  • 1Ti 3.1: C M WH
  • 1Ti 3.3: C M
  • 1Ti 3.16 segmentation: O
  • 1Ti 3.16: C O M NET WH
  • 1Ti 4.3: WH
  • 1Ti 4.10: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 4.12: C M
  • 1Ti 5.4: C
  • 1Ti 5.5: C
  • 1Ti 5.16: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 5.18: C O M
  • 1Ti 5.19: M WH
  • 1Ti 5.21: C
  • 1Ti 6.3: C M
  • 1Ti 6.5: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 6.7: C O M NET WH
  • 1Ti 6.9: C O M
  • 1Ti 6.13: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 6.17: C O M
  • 1Ti 6.19: C O M
  • 1Ti 6.21a: C O M NET
  • 1Ti 6.21b: C O M
  • 1Ti subscription: C M

Interesting standouts: First, Comfort’s coverage is most thorough in number of variations handled. Outside of the "segmentation" issues only noted by Omanson, Comfort misses 1Ti 1.15; 4.3; 5.19. These are areas that are of some text-critical interest, but not necessarily where differences arise in translation. Items that Comfort alone handles include 1Ti 1.12; 2.7b; 5.4, 5, 21.

Westcott and Hort don’t intend to be comprehensive (they only have 140 pages for the whole NT), but it is interesting that in 2 of the 5 places they show up, Comfort is silent: 1Ti 4.3; 5.19. The discussion in 1Ti 5.19 is about how a phrase in the Greek text is not found in some extant Latin witnesses. In the case of 1Ti 4.3, it is simply difficult extant text. While these are issues, it is pretty obvious that these sorts of things don’t really fit the target that Comfort (and Omanson) are trying to hit. W&H give text-critical information to text critics; Comfort and Omanson translate the text-critical information for a larger audience. Metzger sort of sits in the middle of both.

I may dig further into some of these, particularly those that have examples in every listed source (perhaps 1Ti 1.4b or 1Ti 6.7? 1Ti 3.16 is so well-known as to be over-analyzed), just to compare the level of discussion and style of notes each edition has. Let me know if you’re interested in that sort of thing.