It is the boiler plate language iBooks adds when I quote my electronic copy.
I really like Metzger’s work. He was a great scholar.
You just quoted the Greek which has no “is”.
In the translation you give for the Sinaiticus neither of the occurrences of “is” is found in the Greek. For that matter, in the translation you posted for the Vulgate there is no “is” in the Latin.
Inspiration was not the binary classification we think of today.
Besides which, your argument above is circular.
BTW, please edit when you post Greek so it isn’t chopped into small pieces on multiple lines. And when quoting Bible Hub only copy the Greek text unless you’re including the analysis portion to make a point.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
What’s your source? I haven’t seen uncials since grad school!
Yes – the term was “what is read in the churches”. And it’s worth noting that the process came from the bottom up; neighboring churches would share what was being read in their churches, and commonly if a member in one church was traveling and would be visiting another church lists got exchanged via letters carried by those visitors. When one church learned of something another church was reading – which means reading during worship – that they didn’t have, copies would be requested. After a while this was being done between groups of churches and eventually worked its way up to patriarchal level.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
I just read the Greek:
πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος <καὶ> ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸς ἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν . . . .
There’s not a single “is” in there – and the καὶ is doubtful (indicated by the < >).
Out of your list this is the only one that actually speaks to the point.
My professor for the courses reading Romans in the Greek had that as a banner about the chalk boards in the classroom (including the preceding clause which indicates that this is about Paul). The first day, he said we should keep it in mind as we went.
What fable are you referring to now?
That is completely untrue. There’s a significant difference between the places where “is” is to be understood. One reads “All scripture is inspired by God . . . .” while the other reads “All God-inspired scripture is . . . .”
That’s not at issue. The issue is where to put the implied “is”, and it’s an issue because the location changes the meaning.
But English does, and the Greek has an implied one. The question is where it is implied.
I am not arguing that at all; and I only wanted to appreciate Peter’s (God’s) kindness. Difficulty to understand is sometimes a sign of a good text. Thanks.
I probably accidentally miscommunicated. I apologize. Have a good night.
Well, it was and it wasn’t. In the East it wasn’t, in the West some did and some didn’t. Jerome didn’t consider the Deuterocanonical books to belong; he translated them because the Bishop of Rome told him to.
The interesting thing is that no one considered anyone who used a different list to be not a Christian – a fact that says a lot about how the canon was understood: it was not a closed list.
And “Luther Bibles” included the Deuteroncanonical books right up into the mid 1800s.
I have never understood how anyone who studied under Metzger could abandon the faith because of all the variant readings.
I do wish I’d had the opportunity!
Sure. But we don’t go around fussing about things being “mistranslated” because English grammar differs from Greek grammar in the way it handles equatives. It’s a syntactically ambiguous clause, you have to make interpretive arguments from context (what meaning would make the most sense to infer) or from comparing the clause structure to less ambiguous passages and positing some kind of rule. That doesn’t “prove” anything, it just makes a case.
Dan Wallace wrote an extensively documented paper on whether the θεόπνευστος is attributive (all God-breathed Scripture is …) or belongs in the predicate (all Scripture is God-breathed). He comes down on the latter, and this is a good explanation of a rationale of why the translation has stuck and the other option is dispreferred.
Even if you could prove 100% the inferred meaning is “All Scripture is God-breathed,” it’s still a faith claim to say the canonical Bible is Scripture. It clearly wasn’t in view when the passage was written. Or to say only the “God-breathed Scriptures” are useful and decide which ones those are. So ironing out the grammatical questions isn’t going to tell you what to think on the central issue of inspiration anyway.
4 Likes
All references to word and then to prophecy != all of Scripture, note that the 1 corinthians 2:12-13 passage pretty clearly indicates a non-literal approach to the Word. Also 2 TIm 2 literally says to avoid arguing over exact wording…
Moreover, it does also seem that Scripture here is the sacred writings that Paul considered sacred at the time (not the NT). Reinterpreting it to include our current cannon is theological position.
2 Likes
Actually, 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not about scripture but prophecy of scripture. It is not a statement about documents in their entirety.
Jerome’s rejection of the apocrypha is just another example of individuals holding differing opinions about the canon, yet my point was that no official church group that I can find adhered to a 66-book canon in the first 1000+ years of the church.
Personally, I prefer the 22- (rather than 27-) book canon of the Church of the East.
The Ethiopian Church had and still has a much larger canon.
1 Like
Many of us who are Christians recognize that the scriptures have not been protected from textual variants.
The tree of life/book of life error in the last chapter of Revelation in the KJV is an excellent example.
Such views are one of the risks of calling the Bible the “Word of God,” something the Bible never claims to be in its entirety.
1 Like
It would have been very difficult for him to have come down the other way and still have had the career path that he has had.
One reason the translation has stuck could be that the Catholics had the pope who was said to be infallible in matters of faith and morals and the other church organizations needed something infallible.
In other words, you didn’t understand all the grammatical and textual comparison arguments? Cool, cool, cool. Translators don’t just do whatever they feel like. They certainly have better reasons for their choices on ambiguous passages than “I like the way it comes out better this way and I looked at an interlinear gloss.”
2 Likes
I understand motivation and the risks people take when their evolved and informed views threaten deeply held views rooted in their childhood teachings and adhered to by key constituents in their support systems.
To think that people aren’t influenced by the personal impacts of their scholarship positions seems naive.
It’s also naive to dimiss thorough, well-documented linguistic research simply because it doesn’t fit your narrative. I am not personally inclined to agree with DTS and Dan Wallace on many interpretive issues, but he did his Greek homework and talks about linguistics and translation in ways that are accurate and verifiable.
Plus, as people have been repeating on this thread, you can resolve the grammatical questions about the clause structure and it doesn’t resolve the theological interpretation issues at all. It doesn’t matter to your point if the grammatical arguments hold up the traditional translation. Even with the traditional translation “all Scripture is God-breathed,” you still have theological interpretation questions around what counts as Scripture, is it appropriate to label the whole canon God-breathed Scripture, what writings did Scripture refer to in this particular context, how far can you extrapolate a general truth from this specific context, what does the word God-breathed even mean or entail? Pretending you can answer any of these questions simply by claiming “mistranslation” is silly. Translating the verse “All God-breathed Scripture is…” doesn’t resolve any of them, so assuming that linguistic arguments in favor of the former rendering are motivated by a desire to answer any of those questions a certain way is a sign you don’t fully understand the translation or interpretive issues involved. I don’t believe you have really thought this through. I think you have just jumped on an idea some non-Greek expert deconstruction blogger tossed out there, and you’re running with it because it fits your pet stereotypes and agendas. Fine, that’s your prerogative, but it’s not scholarship.
7 Likes
This Dan Wallace?
1 Like
Since graphe, the word translated in 2 Timothy as scripture, means documents and at the time referred to secular and sacred writings, it is best to look at the context.
In context, this refers to the sacred writings Timothy had known from his youth.
The context does not support saying this applies to the New Testament documents, which had not been written when Timothy was a babe.
Saying all documents are inspired by God doesn’t make much sense, as we can all point to writings that are far from deserving that claim.
1 Like
I think the translation “all God-breathed scripture” or “every inspired scripture” or “every God-breathed scripture” or “all inspired scripture” goes a long way to misleading people less.
1 Like
How so? It’s still a question of what ‘writings’ are inspired. I think it’s better to just say reasonable people can disagree about this.