The Greek word pasa may be translated either “all” or “every.” If the former is used, then what this verse says relates to Scripture taken as a whole. If the latter rendering is chosen, then the verse claims that each or every individual Scripture, taken distributively (i.e., verse by verse, and even sentence by sentence), has the qualities named in the rest of 3:16. Either rendering of pasa is possible in this context. Some say it must mean “every” because the next word, graphē, appears without the definite article.11 Others don’t find this compelling because graphē is so frequently used in the NT to refer to Scripture that there is no need for a definite article to designate which writing is under consideration.12 Yet others opt for “every” on contextual grounds. Their point is that in verse 15 Paul speaks of the whole of Scripture with the phrase “sacred writings,” so now in verse 16, as a counterbalance to verse 15, he focuses on each individual passage of Scripture.13 In my judgment, there are neither grammatical nor sufficient contextual grounds to favor one rendering over the other. Thankfully, no significant theological point hinges on whether we translate pasa as “all” or “every.” If we choose the former, it is all-inclusive, so no specific passage need be left out. If the latter, where every passage of Scripture taken individually is the thought, no passage is omitted, so the meaning is the same as "all" anyway. There is a point, however, that must not be missed. Whether one renders pasa as “all” or “every,” this word means that the qualities attributed to the thing pasa modifies, i.e., graphē, are qualities possessed by every single part of the graphē. That is, Paul affirms that every single verse of Scripture possesses equally the qualities he will mention. The word pasa in this verse is a major reason why evangelicals believe in the plenary (full, total) inspiration of Scripture. Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16 isn’t the only source of this notion, as we shall see.
Feinberg, John S. Light in a Dark Place (Foundations of Evangelical Theology) (pp. 119-120). Crossway. Kindle Edition.
57 comments:
A storm in a teacup?
Daniel Wallace talks about this matter in his grammar and there are some who insist "all" is a biased way to translate pasa in 2 Tim. 3:16. Feinberg seems to downplay the controversy.
"every" could be a dangerous rendering for obvious reasons - "all" seems to be what Paul meant
I think the main point is whether "and" should be include in the text?
Then this whole section is actually talking about the qualification of any given text - proven, presumably over time.
For clarity "and beneficial"
https://biblehub.com/mace/2_timothy/3.htm
The only words that precede "kai" in 2 Timothy 3:16 are one noun and two adjectives.
Variant analysis - "2 Tim 3:16 “and” vs. (absent in Syr P, Bohairic Coptic, Origen, and Hilary.) 1 word not counted in the totals)
"
Unknown, I side with "all" like you do, but "every" is grammatically possible. However, Feinberg's argument is that either way, Paul is not espousing the idea that only some of Scripture is inspired. That reading does not fit the context and goes against the counsel the apostle was giving to young Timothy.
Duncan, sorry but I don't think "and" is the biggest issue here, but even so, there's an excellent chance that "and" (kai) belongs in the text. Additionally, Bill Mounce talks about how kai is functioning either adjunctively or as a "regular copulative." He favors the latter understanding for kai in this text. I.e., "Scripture is inspired and beneficial." Mounce calls this the most natural way to read the text.
Bruce Metzger just has a brief note in his textual commentary (page 649) about kai in 2 Timothy 3:16. He writes that "several versions and Fathers omit the conjunction "because it seems to disturb the construction."
I addition to some of the ones already mentioned, Metzger includes VgCl, Ambrosiaster, and Primasius. Funny that no Greek MSS are listed.
Bruce Metzger cannot possibly know the motive and we are talking about very early witnesses.
Yes it is strange that no Greek manuscripts are listed but you already know that some witnesses to the Greek from the 18th century comment on ones that do not have it. And there is no obvious motivational reason for them to say that apart from them actually seeing them, unless you can think of a good reason?
Stepbible app:
καὶ] Byz ς WH
omit] vgcl syrp copbo Origenlat Ambrosiaster Hilary Primasius
Cornerstone Biblical Commentary:
"All Scripture is inspired by God. Of the possible ways of understanding the Greek grammar, it is most likely that the adjective theopneustos [TG2315, ZG2535] (inspired) is a predicate of graphē [TG1124, ZG1210] (Scripture); cf. Wallace 1996:313-314 (noting the weak textual evidence for the omission of kai"
Another thing that we do not know - what texts did Paul and timothy have access to? I am sure that the Torah would never have been in question when making the statement & it may also differentiate between that which is written and that which is not - the oral tradition. I don't think that this can be ruled out with what we know of the period.
Luke 24:44
I don't think they were in question at all.
New English Bible with KAI left out: "All God-breathed Scripture is profitable..."
Luke ch.24:44KJV"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were WRITTEN in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. "
John ch.5:39NIV"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,"
Metzger could know their motive if early writers expressed discomfort about certain syntactical structures. And I have examined all of the Greek texts in question, but I know that kai is well attested for 2 Timothy 3:16 and those who question it, do so on tenuous grounds.
The NEB does a lot of questionable translations. This is another one. If we're going by textual evidence, there is no good reason to exclude it. Yes I'm familiar with those who question the presence of kai and point to certain MSS, but I don't think they are relying on sound reasons.
In one way or another, Paul likely had access to the Tanakh in toto. We have to be careful about speculating. Yet,a lot of what he had can be pieced together from the Pauline epistles
Adam Clarke did not write that some Greek MSS omitted kai, rather, "The particle και, and, is omitted by almost all the versions and many of the fathers, and certainly does not agree well with the text."
By "versions," I don't think he's referring to Greek MSS.
Here is what Dan Wallace states on pages 313-314 of GGBB:
"There is a textual variant which omits the Kai. If original, then almost surely [theopneustos] is attributive. However, support for it is weak (neither Nestle27 nor Tischendorf list any Greek MSS omitting the kai; they give only versions and patristic writers)."
"Even an attributive [theopneustos] would not necessarily imply that not all scripture was inspired, for this adj. could be descriptive (of all scripture) rather than restrictive."
Wallace declares that, based on the textual evidence, the NEB rendering is "highly suspect."
I should post Philip Comfort's remarks on 2 Tim. 3:16. He explains that no Greek MSS omit kai, among other things.
With the thousands of manuscripts, NONE of them omit Kai? Thats a dubious claim if I ever heard one.
We are talking about what Paul had access too. I very much doubt that HE had them all.
But the point here is not what Paul had but what Timothy had or had access to.
Servant,
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/5-39.htm
https://biblehub.com/text/luke/24-44.htm
Are you making the assumption that they are saying the same thing? We also know that the oral law was written down.
This discussion should not ignore Job 32:8.
Servant, the writings include many other books and quotes from those books were also used to testify about Jesus as you should already know from Jude's examples.
Bold claims about the NAB too. Like our past discussion of Isaiah 9:6.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/NEB/23%20isaiah.pdf
It is more honest and than most translations because multiple interpretations are possible, & one does not take priority over the other.
https://biblehub.com/text/2_peter/3-16.htm
Edgar, are you referring to this book - http://files.tyndale.com/thpdata/firstchapters/978-0-8423-8367-7.pdf
Its not just the NEB - https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/second-epistle-of-st-paul-to-timothy-12238
"3:16. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:"
https://www.digitalcollections.manchester.ac.uk/view/MS-ENGLISH-00081/287
Duncan, the facts of the matter are that no extant Greek MS omits kai in 2 Timothy 3:16--none: NA28 doesn't even discuss the issue in its apparatus criticus. Maybe scholars will find a MS that does omit kai but no extant MS omits the conjunction. How can that be dubious? It's a fact. :-)
I think it's pretty much unanswerable what Timothy might have possessed, yet don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he possibly had access to the OT canon as a whole by that time. It's easier to construct what Paul had since he wrote letters with allusions or direct quotations in them. Btw, the OT canon was completed before the third century BCE.
I posted the information from Comfort in a separate post, which I think you've seen by now, and included the title of his book in that post.
The NEB is riddled with problems; how is it meritorious to leave out "and" in a passage when all of the Greek MSS include it? What is the basis for leaving out "and" in that case? Just because some Latin and Syriac versions might not have it, or some Fathers exclude it? They could at least include a footnote, which I'll check since I have a copy of the NEB.
However, that is the least of problems that the NEB has. Yes, there are possible ways to translate verses and I'm all for giving translators some slack. Nevertheless, there is just a straight up agenda occurring with the NEB.
Catholic bibles leave out "and" because that's what VGCl does.
Sorry, I still don't see how they or you can say none - what apparatus list all available ???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_Second_Epistle_to_Timothy
https://classics-at.chs.harvard.edu/classics18-paulson/
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2014/11/your-greek-new-testament-and-revisions.html
If the DSS is anything to go by, Jerusalem had a whole lot more to access.
NEB Review: https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1961/10/the-new-english-bible-a-preliminary-critique
More about the NEB. See https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/1676/153p025.pdf
Note pages 33-35.
Job 32:8 must be understood in the light of Job 32 as a whole, particularly, Job 32:18.
Allow me to clarify, Duncan. I earlier claimed that no extant Greek MS omits kai; that is, no surviving Greek MS for the NT that we have at our disposal omits kai. If there is one, please show it to me or point me to where I can read it. To my knowledge, such a variant does not exist among the numerous MSS currently at our disposal.
There are now over 5,800 extant Greek MSS for the NT. Approximately that many MSS have been catalogued, so that is why textual critics can say whether kai does/does not appear in 2 Tim. 3:16. The burden of proof is on the one who claims kai was omitted: I've seen no evidence from the Greek MSS to support that assertion.
https://manuscripts.csntm.org
https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/home
https://www.greek-language.com/Manuscripts.html
There's a lot in the DSS that's not part of the Hebrew Bible/OT Canon.
"Job 32:8 must be understood in the light of Job 32 as a whole, particularly, Job 32:18."
So, are NT writers renown for using OT concepts and wording "in context" ?
In Greek Codex Vaticanus contains all the books of the New Testament >>>except for 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation.<<<
Do you have reference to any older fragments of 2 Tim ?
https://www.academia.edu/4256968/Three_New_Coptic_Papyrus_Fragments_of_2_Timothy_and_Titus_P_Mich_inv_3535b_JBL_
Not Greek, but it prompted me to ask another question - how many Greek fragment actually have 2 Tim 3:16 in them?
The situation is not the same for NT writers vs. those of us today who are trying to understand the NT. The early Christians not only appropriated but reappropriated Tanakh, so they would apply OT passages "out of context," so to speak. However, my comment pertained to those trying to understand and exegete the text today. If one is going to properly exegete the OT or NT corpus, he or she must read verses in context.
I don't know of any older fragments although we have abundant testimony to the existence of the Pastorals.
Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 – c. 253).
Hilary of Poitiers (Latin: Hilarius Pictaviensis; c. 310 – c. 367)
So I am not discounting the omission of Kai quite yet.
Existence (which is not in dispute) does not control content.
I think the whole idea of witnesses in Greek is misleading as a benchmark for authenticity.
In the same way as OG and MT foil of each other for the OT. Which is now justifiable with the DSS readings that we have.
Duncan, I would recommend the first few pages of R.F. Collins NLT 1-2 Timothy, Titus commentary and the book, The Early Text of the NT by Charles Hill, et al. I think you will find that we likely don't have early Greek fragments with 2 Tim. 3:16 in them, but we have lots of evidence that the passage existed and the form in which many had the verse.
Yes, I am aware of the testimony from Origen and Hilary. Yet, what do the bulk of patristic witnesses say? We already know what the Greek NT witnesses reveal. 2 Tim. 3:16 was an oft-quoted or cited passage. Check John Chrysostom and note how he quotes the verse.
I will believe kai was omitted when I see a Greek MS that shows it: it's possible but even if one or a few left it out, that doesn't mean it should overturn thousands of witnesses to the contrary.
Why should non-Greek witnesses be privileged above the Greek MSS themselves?
NT textual critics not only appeal to Greek MSS, which I think should take priority, but they use patristic witnesses, Latin, Syriac texts, etc. It's not a perfect "science," but TC has likely brought us closer to the original text than ever.
Even with OT textual criticism, there has to be a good basis for accepting a reading: you can't just assert that a variant is the case without some basis. I realize that you're appealing to non-Greek witnesses for the omission of kai; I think the case would be stronger if at least one Greek MS left it out, but no extant copies do.
If we don't use textual witnesses, then what?
As far as I see it, these witnesses are quoting a variant. There is no justification for attributing an opinion to the reasons for quoting of the text without Kai. It is one possibility & a source without Kai is another, but please make a post on how one would logically weight one against the other?
The "it should overturn thousands of witnesses to the contrary." - What witnesses to the contrary? other wise its just nonsense. What "thousands of witnesses", is that thousands of late witnesses and how many actually include 3:16 or even 2 Tim ?
Being a "Greek" source is irrelevant & those standards for textual decision make no sense.
Just because people do it that way, do you think it means anything to me unless someone can demonstrate how that actually works better.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Tim%203:16
The witnesses I'm talking about are the Greek MSS themselves: one can't do better than the texts of the NT in Greek. I am not talking about people quoting the NT or reporting what a variant said, but I'm referring to Greek MSS, whether early or later.
I've acknowledged that non-greek sources retain the passage with no equivalent of kai, but so far, I've not seen a Greek MSS that omits kai. If this were a trial, the no kai side would be in trouble.
Again, the witnesses I'm talking about are the Greek MSS which don't support the belief that Kai was ever or should be left out.
How can a Greek MS not be relevant in this discussion? That doesn't make sense to me.
I did also mention patriotic citations because the other side does it with Origin and Hilary, but Collins notes that the patristic citations for Timothy number over 400. You can check biblia patristica to find such cites.
How many Greek and more importantly from when? Sure its in Siniaticus but where else?
The 400 patristic citations have it in full do they, so the the Kai is evident? because not all the ones list on the site above do.
Earlier witness is earlier witness & the language is a arbitrary and false categorization. Maybe one day we will find a secondary witness to an important event including Jesus written in Latin or some other language dated to the first century. Rest assures the "Greek category" will certainly be thrown out in that instance. Or one day finding evidence of Jesus words in Hebrew. Its interesting how other languages are used as arguments for the interpretation of John 1:1.
Greek is irrelevant, but the dating is.
What I'm saying is that we have over 5,800 Greek MSS of the NT collected and catalogued, period. They are from different dates and links for these texts have already been posted.
I didn't claim that the all of the patriotic citations have Timothy or 2 Timothy in full, but my point was that you can see where the patristics cited 2 Timothy 3 by consulting Biblia Patristica: they cited Timothy many times, whether partly or not.
There are a few writers along with Syriac and the Vulgate Clementine that leave out the kai. But usually when something like this happens, there is at least one Greek MS that corroborates the Latin or the patristic source. Not in this case.
If all Greek MSS originated in the first century, and we have no reason to believe any differently, then all else is speculation.
NT textual criticism uses other languages for the whole NT, not just one verse, but Greek is the main focus because the autographs were written in that language.
Maybe Matthew was written in Hebrew first, but we don't know for sure. It's unlikely that Jesus' early disciples would have produced the NT in Latin.
Once we get away from evidence-based approaches, anything goes.
Here's the quote from R.F. Collins' book:
A turn-of-the-third-century papyrus (P46) sometimes thought to have contained the “canon” of Paul’s letters to the churches, does not contain the Pastoral Letters. Neither does the fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, generally considered one of the most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament, contain these texts. Although P46 and the Vaticanus do not contain the Pastorals, the epistles were well known in the early church. The 1975 edition of the Biblia Patristica cites about 450 second-century references to these epistles. Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians, probably to be dated to about 120, appears to contain many references to the epistles.2 During the second century there was even some controversy about the authority of the Pastorals. Tertullian reports that Marcion excluded all three epistles from his bowdlerized canon (Adversus Marcionem 5:21 [PL 2.524]). Jerome says that Tatian accepted Titus but not the epistles to Timothy (Prologue to Titus [PL 26.556]).
So, his remarks specifically pertained to the PE, not just Timothy, but that is still a lot of references.
I would also recommend that you check out the first part of the Marshall and Towner commentary you mentioned.
FWIW, Ben Witherington writes that the patristics cite or quote 2 Timothy 3:16 roughly 100 times. See Biblia Patristica to verify that number.
Looking at the Collins quote again, I see that he's confining the 450 references for the PE to the 2nd century CE
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html
Post a Comment