Intentional Mistranslation of 2 Timothy 3:16

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Continuing the discussion from 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and its impact:

The “is” is not in the Greek!

A translation without added words:

But abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus: every scripture inspired of God, also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

In context, this is about the scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth (the Septuagint).

The glorification of scripture can detract from the true one we should worship.

1 Like
2

So Paul is endorsing the Septuagint?

Actually, not really – first-century Jews had a very different concept of inspiration, one where different translations could still count as inspired; inspiration applied to the message, not to the specific words.

That said, “scripture breathed out by God and profitable” requires a verb of being in there somewhere. Where it goes depends on the variant reading in the verse which is the word in bold: does it belong there or not? If someone wants to put the “is” in front of “breathed”, then it’s obvious why putting “and” in there would happen – but take that out and the “is” can go either there or in front of “profitable”; the question becomes one of whether Paul is saying something about God-breathed scripture so that “profitable” is first on a list, or saying something about scripture so that “God-breathed” is first on the list.

I keep looking at the Greek without the “and”:

πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν . . .

and thinking I could argue it either way, as well as arguing for the reading you quoted where “and” is rendered “also”. The last is the hardest case to make, BTW; it requires linking “also” with " the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus", thus:

From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus – every God-breathed Scripture – also useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

That strikes me as a bit clumsy unless again an “are” is inserted ahead of “also”. (I wish this software would allow diagramming sentences; it would make presenting the arguments simpler!) Though even then the parenthetical phrase between my hyphens is awkward; it should logically follow “the Holy Scriptures”, but that has its own issues. The attraction is that it takes “able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” and makes it the start of a list that continues with “[are] also useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness”.

Tough call.

BTW, this is what makes variant readings so fascinating; they can change the sentence structure and shift the meaning.

edit: this is interesting enough I posted a question on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange: greek - What are the arguments for or against including "καὶ" ahead of "ὠφέλιμος" in II Timothy 3:16-16? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange

2 Likes
3

I doubt the pastoral epistles were written by Paul, as do many people.

Yet, people basing what is often the first entry on their statement of faith (all scripture is inspired…) on a questionable translation appears to me to be a foundation of sand.

And, yes, I know that the early church leaders viewed many writings as inspired, not just those in the canon.

4

I like this quote and the words after it that I did not quote for brevity:

“It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as ‘true and given through the Holy Spirit’ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: ‘If you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λόγος) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. “ For whatever we have been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out of love for the things revealed to us that we come to share them with you’ (xi. 7–8). Among the writings of Eusebius there is a sermon attributed to the Emperor Constantine; whether or not this attribution is correct, the preacher clearly does not consider inspiration to be confined only to the Scriptures. He begins his sermon with the prayer, ‘May the mighty inspiration of the Father and of his Son … be with me in speaking these things’ (Orat. Const. 2).
Not only do early ecclesiastical writers view themselves to be, in some degree at least, inspired, but also others affirm, in a rather broad sense, the inspiration of their predecessors, if not their contemporaries. In a letter that Augustine addressed to Jerome, the bishop of Hippo goes so far as to say (Epist. lxxxii. 2) not only that Jerome has been favoured with the divine grace, but also that he writes under the dictation of the Holy Spirit (Spiritu Sancto)”…

Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger

This material may be protected by copyright.

5

Which greek would that be where
“is” is not found?

Codex Sinaiticus has the following
παϲα γραφη θεο

πνευϲτοϲ και ω

φελιμοϲ προϲ δι

δαϲκαλιαν · προϲ ε

λεγμον ˙ προϲ επα

νορθωϲιν · προϲ

παιδιαν την εν

Which is translated as:
16 All scripture is by inspiration of God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Bible hub Interlinear has the following:
◄ 2 Timothy 3:16 ►

2 Timothy 3 - Click for Chapter

16 3956 [e]
16 pasa
16 πᾶσα
16 Every
16 Adj-NFS

1124 [e]
graphē
γραφὴ
Scripture [is]
N-NFS

2315 [e]
theopneustos
θεόπνευστος
God-breathed
Adj-NFS

2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj

5624 [e]
ōphelimos
ὠφέλιμος
profitable
Adj-NFS

4314 [e]
pros
πρὸς
for
Prep

1319 [e]
didaskalian
διδασκαλίαν ,
instruction
N-AFS

4314 [e]
pros
πρὸς
for
Prep

1650 [e]
elegmon
ἐλεγμόν ,
conviction
N-AMS

4314 [e]
pros
πρὸς
for
Prep

1882 [e]
epanorthōsin
ἐπανόρθωσιν ,
correction
N-AFS

4314 [e]
pros
πρὸς
[and] for
Prep

3809 [e]
paideian
παιδείαν
training
N-AFS

3588 [e]
tēn
τὴν

Art-AFS

1722 [e]
en
ἐν
in
Prep

1343 [e]
dikaiosynē
δικαιοσύνῃ ,
righteousness
N-DFS

The Latin Vulgate, which is not Greek, translates without “is”

16 omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata et utilis ad docendum ad arguendum ad corrigendum ad erudiendum in iustitia

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

In order to best understand which is the correct meaning of this verse, one cannot straw pluck at individual translations singling out only the one which suits ones theology. I would argue that the Vulgate still claims that all scripture is inspired by God…it is not claiming that some of the Bible Cannon is not inspired.
We know this because that which is not inspired was not included in the Bible cannon (for example the Apocrypha, outside of Catholicism isnt considered inspired as far as i am aware).

6

In the Greek you posted.

Did you not notice the brackets around the is?

The [is] with brackets means the is was not in the Greek and still isn’t.

Adam, it may be more clear to you in this picture:

image
image2345×1488 576 KB

7

Inspiration was not a criterion for canonization.

Consider this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-New-Testament-Development-Significance/dp/0198269544/ref=asc_df_0198269544/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312696355873&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=3227956291091573200&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9010766&hvtargid=pla-522287493773&psc=1&mcid=c8d4a8add483310e80c992eab1b21652&gclid=CjwKCAiAkp6tBhB5EiwANTCx1L3tElYqzTacx9X52c82QKIHkC0iWy0GlN98qoGPlINov_TU_1Vp8RoCdv0QAvD_BwE

8

Short answer is the decision on what to include in the canon was what is currently being used and is it authoritative. Which is how we ended up with texts that weren’t actually written by the assumed author in the canon.

9

So because the Tyndale version has this, the O.P thinks thats how doctrine is determined?

Secondly, i note the O.P inclusion of grammatical markers…comas and full stops, why?

Remove all of that, read the text and then tell me it reads differently in the greek.

Doctrine of scriptural inerrancy and inspiration isnt determined soley on 2 timothy 3.16

In 2 Tim 2 Paul says

14Remind the believers of these things, charging them before Goda to avoid quarreling over words, which succeeds only in leading the listeners to ruin.

He is teaching us to be wary of abandoning our faith in order to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons,

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires.

In nitpicking over this, the O.P is ignoring the real point of the text.

Finally, 2 Tim 3.16 isnt the only text about Gods inpiration…

John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Acts 1:16
Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
1 Thessalonians 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:15-15
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

10

I always appreciate Peter having said this part. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
11

John 17:17Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.

Acts 1:16
Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
1 Thessalonians 2:13

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 3:15-15
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Rather than changing context, by straw plucking, quote properly.

What you fail to understand is that the inpiration part also extends to the 70 who collated the bible canon!

12

I’m sorry–I must have miscommunicated. I was not intending to disagree with anything you said. I was grateful that Peter said that sometimes, reading Scripture is difficult.

I appreciate any empathy that comes from folks–and Peter has had his own problems, which maybe makes him more empathetic. Some of what you have said is sympathetic, too–which I greatly appreciate.

Thank you.

13

That is not related to the bible canon…You are twisting words.

Btw, could you show me the brackets around “is” in codex sinaiticus?

14

Now I’m totally confused.

15

The point is, the use of “is” is irrelevant to the meaning of the text. It is not adding or subtracting words with the intent to deceive…its merely translation methods to improve readability (its done universally throughout the world even today). There are at least 20 other bible verses that all describe inspiration of bible writers.and those who organised the bible canon. Translational differences dont change that.

Christians believe that God protects His word and that it is still being protected.

16

Greek equative, qualitative, and locative clauses do not require a copula.

17

Which canon?

There are several.

The 66-book canon you use was not in until about the 1500s. Even the 1611 KJV had more than 66 books.

So do you know who set the 66-book canon?

Since the 66-book canon was not used for the first 1500 years after Jesus, do you think the inspiration of the canon that you assert happened was withheld more than 1000 years.

1 Like
18

That codex in the 2 Timothy 3:16 has neither “is” nor “[is]”

That is the point: translators add the “is” and it changes the meaning of the text.

1 Like
19

That’s all the farther I had to read to recognize it as Metzger. He hadn’t published Canon yet but we read reams of his work in grad school in a course on the canonization of the New Testament. It was that course where we learned that both the term “inspiration” and “word of God” were not as hard and fast or binary as we treat them today (Origen listed seven different [levels of] meanings of the term “word of God”). One item that stuck with me was that not all the books included in the New Testament were regarded as being equal: the unanimously accepted books were on the top level and the “antilegomena”, the books “spoken against” were below them, the difference being that no doctrine was to be founded on the antilegomena, only on the homolegoumena, the fully-accepted books.

A quote that short falls under fair use.

1 Like
20

Perhaps you could list a few.