|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The saviour of all men
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
1 Tim 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
As opposed to, the saviour of ONLY those that believe. Is this a verse recognizing universal salvation? It sure looks that way at first blush. And what does it mean to be the saviour of some people "specially" -- as opposed, one supposes, to being everybody else's saviour in some ordinary way.
I find this a confusing verse. As a universalist wannabe, I find it comforting, but the whole "specially" part is inscrutable to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Unfortunately I don't think it proves anything one way or another. As the person who has indeed redeemed the whole human race (whether it is willing to partake of that redemption or not) Jesus is the Savior of everybody, yes, but that doesn't guarantee everybody is going to come out all right in the end. Wish it did.
He is Savior of everybody because he has performed that saving act, even if they choose to throw it away--and specially of those who believe, because in them his action has its intended fruit. I'm afraid that if anything, by making a distinction, this verse tends more against the universalist position. Which kind of sucks.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
When I look at it, I am distracted by the use of "specially" instead of "especially".
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Interestingly, the verse refers to God as saviour and not Christ. God is saviour in that he sent Christ as an object of belief? In a sense God continually sustains the environment we need for life and so is saviour in a broad brush way.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
From a linguistic perspective, I'd say the use of the qualifier "specially" implies that salvation is not the same for everyone. I gather that from a theological perspective, such a conclusion would not fit well with mainstream Christianity?
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
I read the whole of chapter 4 in order to see the verse in context. I think 1 Tim 4:10 is a rebuttal response to what's happening in verse 3: 'They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.' I think 'all men' here is used as a contrast to verse 3's narrowness regarding who can be saved. The issue was faith in God verses faith in certain ritual practices in order to earn salvation. Given the letter was addressed to Timothy who was already a Christian to guard against false teaching that may affect the 'brothers and sisters', I think to use 4:10 in this context to validate universalism - which to my understanding would include those who do not believe in God or even who are against God - would be to take the meaning of 'all men' too far.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
I read the whole of chapter 4 in order to see the verse in context. I think 1 Tim 4:10 is a rebuttal response to what's happening in verse 3: 'They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.' I think 'all men' here is used as a contrast to verse 3's narrowness regarding who can be saved. The issue was faith in God verses faith in certain ritual practices in order to earn salvation. Given the letter was addressed to Timothy who was already a Christian to guard against false teaching that may affect the 'brothers and sisters', I think to use 4:10 in this context to validate universalism - which to my understanding would include those who do not believe in God or even who are against God - would be to take the meaning of 'all men' too far.
This analysis doesn't do justice, or indeed make room for, the "specially for those who believe" part. It is clearly bifurcating humanity into those who believe and those who do not, and saying that God is the saviour of both groups, but one more especially so than the other.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The usual distinction between God desiring to save all, and being the only possible Saviour for all, vs. actually saving all, can be made here. See in particular 1 Tim 2:3-5 of the same letter as evidence that the author is thinking along those lines.
But perhaps in this particular case it is even simpler. There is apparently extra-biblical evidence that the Greek word "malista" translated here as "specially" can in this kind of construction effectively mean "namely". At which point this would become a decidedly anti-universalist verse...
In response to W Hyatt, tradition certainly allows for a variety of outcomes post-salvation. It is binary concerning whether you are going to be fundamentally happy or unhappy in the afterlife, heaven or hell, but it allows gradation concerning what you are happy or unhappy about. I'm not saying that the "specially" here is in reference to that, indeed I don't think so. But if that was the intention, it would not contradict tradition.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But perhaps in this particular case it is even simpler. There is apparently extra-biblical evidence that the Greek word "malista" translated here as "specially" can in this kind of construction effectively mean "namely". At which point this would become a decidedly anti-universalist verse...
Do you have a citation for this? I'm not seeing in BDAG which just has:
1. to an unusual degree, most of all, above all, especially, particularly
2. marker of high level of certitude, in answer to a question, most assuredly, certainly
Sense 2 is almost 'namely' but I'm not seeing the exclusivity.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Do you have a citation for this?
Sort of... I happened to have the ESV Study Bible at hand when looking at this post (which is not usually my preferred commentary, I was comparing the NRSV and ESV translations on a completely different verse). What I said above concerning the word used is basically a paraphrase of one of their comments on the verse. The ESV Study Bible gives multiple ways of interpreting the verse in a non-universalist way, but this one stuck out for me as "I didn't know that."
I would expect that this means that in some other Koine text the word is used in a way that is clearly "namely" from context. But the ESV commentary unfortunately does not cross-reference this to a primary or authoritative secondary source.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
LSJ cites a Platonic usage:
quote:
ti malista? what is the precise thing that you want?
This would seem to fit the "namely" meaning:
quote:
(paraphrasing):
God's the Savior of all! Well, more precisely, I guess, of all who believe.
I remember sitting in some philosophy of language classes about that word 'all.' The scope of the word in ordinary language is context dependent. When I say "All the beer is in the fridge," I don't mean all the beer in the world, I mean all the contextually salient beer. In some circumstances, such as when it's unclear quite what's contextually salient, I might need to clarify quite what I'm including in my 'all.' That sense of malista could seem one way to do that.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This analysis doesn't do justice, or indeed make room for, the "specially for those who believe" part. It is clearly bifurcating humanity into those who believe and those who do not, and saying that God is the saviour of both groups, but one more especially so than the other.
To begin with, I defer to IngoB's scholarship. I was told that IngoB is right about the meaning of the word 'especially'. So I will keep that in mind, but still give me two pennies' worth.
If I remember rightly, elsewhere in the Bible there was a little mention (was it also by Paul?)about God judging those who have never heard of the gospel and that they will be judged according to their conscience. Sadly I can't remember off of the top of my head where the chapter and verse of it is, but I think it is possible that Paul could have this group of people in mind when he wrote the letter, so used the 'espcially' to differentiate between those who are saved because of their faith in God (by grace, more certain) and those who might be saved when they are judged according to their good conscience (less certain salvation). But even with the possibility of a non-believer who might be saved by God, I think there is still a vast difference from universalism which as I understand it, would include those who have known God, but rejected Him.
In any case, as far as I can see, chapter 4 is about warning against false teaching, godless myths and old wives’ tales and also to encourage Timothy in his ministry. "6 If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.." I think these verses summarised Paul's main concerns in chapter 4 and I don't believe that Paul ever had universalism in mind when he wrote the letter because the rest of the texts simply doesn't reflect it. So the question I would ask is: is it good practice to build my theology based on an assumed 'X' when the surrounding text is about 'Y' and 'Z'?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
To begin with, I defer to IngoB's scholarship.
With all due respect, reading a footnote in a popular bible isn't "scholarship."
quote:
I don't believe that Paul ever had universalism in mind when he wrote the letter because the rest of the texts simply doesn't reflect it. So the question I would ask is: is it good practice to build my theology based on an assumed 'X' when the surrounding text is about 'Y' and 'Z'?
If 'X' keeps popping up in various and different contexts, just sort of sitting there, maybe so. It's like the guy who drops little clues about his daughter, and about Sarajevo, and about having a child in eastern Europe, but never comes out and says, "My daughter lives in Sarajevo."
It's really not much weaker than the case for the Trinity, which is never said out loud in scripture either.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
To begin with, I defer to IngoB's scholarship. I was told that IngoB is right about the meaning of the word 'especially'.
Just to recap what actually has been said: Ingo said this was one option his commentary gave as a way of reading this verse, among others. I gave back-up from a good Greek dictionary that this is indeed linguistically a possible reading.
None of this means it's the right reading.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Also, although the LSJ quote suggests that an exclusive reading maybe shouldn't be dimissed without further consideration, there isn't a single mainstream English translation that I can find which chooses that meaning in its translation (including the ESV)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
It would be unwise for a translator to impose one possible meaning just because it is considered theologically fitting. "Especially" is certainly the main meaning of the word, and using that retains enough ambiguity in English to make the OP wonder about the verse. There is a semantic clash there between being saved, which one either is or not, and believers being special. The semantic gap in my opinion remains comfortably big enough to drive the entire traditional (non-universalist) understanding through it. As mentioned, I consider 1 Tim 2:3-5 as key evidence that this doesn't do violence to the author either.
To be honest, I wouldn't particularly sweat this verse even if the "specially" part was missing. Trying to build theology on a single verse is invariably a mistake, and a wider reading of scripture provides plenty of "contrary" evidence. The traditional understanding is after all precisely an attempt to balance apparently clashing verses into a coherent whole. Whatever you may think of that solution, it is precisely not a one-sided reading that ignores verses like this one. Rather it explains the difference between "all" here and elsewhere, and "not all" or even "few" in other parts, as rooted in the difference between God's will and ours, basically.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
To add, the Vulgate has "... qui est salvator omnium hominum maxime fidelium", and "maxime" has the basic meaning "in the highest degree, most particularly, especially, exceedingly, altogether, very" and includes possible meanings like "in the first place", "principally", etc. So this particular range of meaning is not a matter just of modern English translations, but has been around since Jerome at least... I'm not going to go through German and Dutch translations, unless someone really wants me to. Suffice to say that spot checking suggests it's just the same again.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It would be unwise for a translator to impose one possible meaning just because it is considered theologically fitting.
Sure. Though often translations can't help themselves!
quote:
There is a semantic clash there between being saved, which one either is or not, and believers being special.
Everyone should be happy, especially those whose birthday it is.
In any case, so far I've really only commented on the lowest level - what does the text say. We haven't really tackled the question of what Paul intended to communicate by his text (and to who etc), or even other question of whether Paul's intended meaning is the normative meaning of the text.
quote:
To add, the Vulgate has "... qui est salvator omnium hominum maxime fidelium", and "maxime" has the basic meaning "in the highest degree, most particularly, especially, exceedingly, altogether, very" and includes possible meanings like "in the first place", "principally", etc.
Yep, this is the BDAG 1 meaning I quoted above. But this isn't the same as 'namely'.
[ 28. January 2015, 09:08: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is a semantic clash there between being saved, which one either is or not, and believers being special.
Everyone should be happy, especially those whose birthday it is.
That's not a good comparison. Happiness is by default graded in our minds, being saved not so much. I think it is more like:
"The coast guard is charged with rescuing all people on sinking ships, especially women and children."
What does "especially" indicate there, i.e., what does that mean in practice if you are a man? And does this mean that the coast guard will in fact rescue everybody? Does it even mean that the coast guard will rescue all women and children?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yep, this is the BDAG 1 meaning I quoted above. But this isn't the same as 'namely'.
Yes, but so what? If we have established that the Greek could mean "namely" here, then all we are learning from this is that Jerome in his translation to Latin didn't pick this meaning from the possibilities, and that this almost certainly has contributed to Western uniformity in translating the verse. It could still be the case that the text meant "namely" there, with exactly the same probability as before. The probability is determined by the Greek usage at the time of writing, as well as perhaps by what is known about the author's intentions, circumstances and idiosyncrasies, not by later translation conventions.
(RCs could argue that since the Vulgate has been authoritatively declared to contain no error concerning Christian faith and morals, "maxime" must be considered as not standing against correct scripture interpretation. But that does not really change matters, and anyway is probably an argument most people here couldn't care less about...)
[ 28. January 2015, 11:23: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
Just to recap what actually has been said: Ingo said this was one option his commentary gave as a way of reading this verse, among others. I gave back-up from a good Greek dictionary that this is indeed linguistically a possible reading.
None of this means it's the right reading.
Sorry. When I posted, I didn't see your initial post because it always takes me so bloody long to write anything down! I should have gone back to read the thread before I posted. You are right of course and I should have been more precise about what I am agreeing with. As it happens, I was told by someone else that I usually defer to (!) that it could be 'namely' because Paul has used the same word several times in other places in the sense of 'by this I mean...' then he would go on to clarify what he wanted to say. So it's looking at how Paul would normally use the word as well as what is possible in terms of dictionary definitions plus the context of the letter itself that I come to think that 'namely' probably is the right meaning for 'especially' here. Sadly, I don't know my Greek from my Swahili, so I can only take what is told to me and what makes sense to me as a guide to the get to the right reading. That doesn't mean I couldn't be wrong of course, but because I haven't seen a better explanation of the word at this point, I am sticking to IngoB's and your possible 'namely' understanding of the word 'especially' as a way of going forward.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Pooks, you can largely do this yourself, even without knowing Greek. You can look at all the occurrences of "malista" here, and check both the Greek Interlinear (a "word-by-word" translation to English, below "Thayer's Greek Lexicon") and various "proper" English translations (right column, below "Englishman's Concordance") by clicking on the links. Acts 20:38 sort of works for me with "namely". Acts 26:3 as well. Philippians 4:22, yes. 1 Timothy 5:17, yes (and perhaps most significantly so, given it's in the same letter). 2 Timothy 4:13, maybe? The rest of them, not. In particular Galatians 6:10 seems almost designed to be a counter-example.
So at the end of this exercise, I'm still far from convinced, but I would say that I consider the probability for a "namely" meaning to be higher now than before.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pooks:
To begin with, I defer to IngoB's scholarship.
With all due respect, reading a footnote in a popular bible isn't "scholarship."
Hahaha! At least you didn't say 'With the greatest possible respect.' as the QCs on this side of the pond would quip in court to a judge. Perhaps next time. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ok. So my standard for what constitutes scholarship probably isn't as high as yours. As far as I am concerned, anyone who is as well read as IngoB and many others here, who have displayed a formidable ability in learning and are so adept at expressing their point of view with reasons, whether I agree with them or not, are scholars in my book. But I will concede that there is a world of difference between a 'scholar' and 'scholarship'. It's a sloppy use of the word 'sholarship' on my part. In this instance, I should have said: I consdier IngoB a scholar, and I defer to his view that 'namely' could be a possible meaning for the word 'especially' in the context of the 1 Tim chapter 4.
But this is a bit of a tangent. My apologies to the hosts.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If 'X' keeps popping up in various and different contexts, just sort of sitting there, maybe so. It's like the guy who drops little clues about his daughter, and about Sarajevo, and about having a child in eastern Europe, but never comes out and says, "My daughter lives in Sarajevo."
It's really not much weaker than the case for the Trinity, which is never said out loud in scripture either.
I would still argue that a good practice would be to always read in context in order to test whether concept 'X' is even there. If it is, then we can look at what 'X' is in detail and what impact it has on the rest of text.
It is true that the word 'Trinity' was never used in the Bible, but then I would never argue one way or another whether 'Trinity' is true or not based on one single word. My discomfort is not with whether something is said out loud, it is whether something is being read into a text that was not meant to be there. So the first question I would ask about the hints or clues in the Bible is whether they were hints in the first place or just a result of misunderstanding /interpretation of a word or texts by a much later generation of readers.
Anyway, I see IngoB and Demas are having a more detailed and probably more useful discussion. So it's time for me to wish you well and get my coat.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
IngoB, thank you so much for your helpful link. I have to admit that I find it somewhat intimidating, but I will try to get my head around it and go through each reference one by one. It may be sometime before anyone sees me again. lol
Thank you again.
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
"The coast guard is charged with rescuing all people on sinking ships, especially women and children."
What does "especially" indicate there, i.e., what does that mean in practice if you are a man? And does this mean that the coast guard will in fact rescue everybody? Does it even mean that the coast guard will rescue all women and children?
The coastguard in your rephrase intends to rescue everyone. The ‘especially’ in the sentence doesn’t operate to communicate a limit to that intent. We read that as meaning ‘in practice, sometimes the coast guard will rescue children but not grown men’ because we know (from other sources of information) that the coast guard is not always able to achieve its intent.
quote:
quote:
Yep, this is the BDAG 1 meaning I quoted above. But this isn't the same as 'namely'.
Yes, but so what?
I’m confused. I thought you were quoting Jerome to show that there were other possible renderings other than the generally used one?
quote:
If we have established that the Greek could mean "namely" here, then all we are learning from this is that Jerome in his translation to Latin didn't pick this meaning from the possibilities, and that this almost certainly has contributed to Western uniformity in translating the verse. It could still be the case that the text meant "namely" there, with exactly the same probability as before. The probability is determined by the Greek usage at the time of writing, as well as perhaps by what is known about the author's intentions, circumstances and idiosyncrasies, not by later translation conventions.
We haven’t really established that the Greek could mean ‘namely’ here. Adam has given us a usage which is almost ‘namely’ but in a different context (ie a question) and from Plato not Koine. The ESV study bible I would treat somewhat like Wikipedia – enough to indicate that a look around might be worthwhile.
To be clear, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that in no circumstances could μάλιστα mean 'namely' in this context in Koine. Just that no one has established it.
Assuming my linking works, here is the LSJ entry. I don’t think BDAG is online?
Also, this is unjust to modern translators, who are professional scholars (not all of whom are Christian) translating directly from source materials in the light of modern scholarship on linguistics and ancient languages. Working from “Greek usage at the time of writing, as well as perhaps by what is known about the author's intentions, circumstances and idiosyncrasies” is precisely what they do, and based on that there is an academic consensus which can be seen reflected in modern English translations .
quote:
(RCs could argue that since the Vulgate has been authoritatively declared to contain no error concerning Christian faith and morals, "maxime" must be considered as not standing against correct scripture interpretation. But that does not really change matters, and anyway is probably an argument most people here couldn't care less about...)
Oh wow. I didn’t know that there was a RC equivalent to King-James-Onlyism. Is this a common belief in the RCC?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
The coastguard in your rephrase intends to rescue everyone. The ‘especially’ in the sentence doesn’t operate to communicate a limit to that intent. We read that as meaning ‘in practice, sometimes the coast guard will rescue children but not grown men’ because we know (from other sources of information) that the coast guard is not always able to achieve its intent.
Exactly. And furthermore, sometimes the coastguard will not even rescue the children, because it is unable to. That's how I read the verse primarily. You seem to think that I consider the "namely" translation to be the correct one. But I don't, and I never did. I was cagey in mentioning this ESV footnote, check my very careful wording. And I never committed to its suggested reading. I have to say though that now that I have tried to read all occurrences of "malista" as "namely", I consider the probability for this meaning as applying in some places - and maybe here - as higher. For some of the verses it really makes sense. For the one at hand it is still more a maybe. So, I read the verse as shown by the coastguard example, but I admit that it could have the "namely" reading.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I’m confused. I thought you were quoting Jerome to show that there were other possible renderings other than the generally used one?
No, I was quoting Jerome to show that the uniformity of English (and German) translations does not impress me as such as an argument against "namely". Translators have their traditions, they will always look at what has been done before for the same text. The "especially" reading is linguistically "safe" (clearly the majority meaning), and it has the weight of translation tradition behind it. It would be a daring translator who would stand up against this given a mere possibility of a different meaning. It would be otherwise if Jerome had made that "namely" choice, and in his wake likely most early translations into English.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
We haven’t really established that the Greek could mean ‘namely’ here.
I think we have established that the Greek can mean something best translated as "namely" into English. Whether it does so here is a different question. I invite you to do the same exercise I did, and try to read every occurrence of "malista" in the NT as "namely". It clearly doesn't work for some. It is possible for others, like the verse at hand. And then there are some where it actually seems to make more sense to me. Basically the current English translation with "especially" seems a bit strained to me there, and "namely" would relax that strain.
And to compare the people compiling the ESV Study Notes to the editors of Wikipedia is unfair. You may not like their bias, but they are professionals in the field. The contributors, editors and consultants form one long list of PhDs in relevant disciplines...
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Also, this is unjust to modern translators, who are professional scholars (not all of whom are Christian) translating directly from source materials in the light of modern scholarship on linguistics and ancient languages.
No, it's not. Bible translation does not happen in a vacuum. If you had an amateur attempting to translate the bible from scratch, there might be a chance that he would be a "blank slate". Professionals will both know, and consult, many other translations. And anyhow, every translation professional will know that if you wrote "namely" here, there would be inevitably a chorus of "exegesis by translation" raised against it. If nothing else, people will spot a change against an unbroken translation tradition. This will only be done if it can be defended as clearly superior. Since that's hard to argue, it will not be done. Perhaps in a paraphrasing translation like "The Message" you could get away with it. But not in something like the ESV, which tries to sell in the "accurate" market.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Working from “Greek usage at the time of writing, as well as perhaps by what is known about the author's intentions, circumstances and idiosyncrasies” is precisely what they do, and based on that there is an academic consensus which can be seen reflected in modern English translations.
I'm afraid I think this is an insufficient - idealistic and unrealistic - take on the situation. Certainly what you describe is part of what goes on in translating the bible. But if we are talking about commercial products, then there will be a lot of other forces in play as well. And there are also various traditions playing into this, including in particular translation traditions (but also others). Often this is completely explicit, i.e., the "new" bible translation is explicitly advertised as revision of, or at least as heavily based on, a prior translation.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Oh wow. I didn’t know that there was a RC equivalent to King-James-Onlyism. Is this a common belief in the RCC?
It isn't an "Onlyism". It is a guarantee that one particular text can be assumed as unfailingly reliable in what it says. Note: not unfailingly reliable as a translation, rather considered by and in itself. And no, it is not a common belief in the RCC. Most Catholics today wouldn't know that. Most Catholics today probably wouldn't know what a "Vulgate" is... But it is clearly doctrine, and arguably conciliar dogma, of the RCC.
quote:
Council of Trent, 4th session
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod - considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic - ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.
Divino Afflante Spiritu
And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
Behind this is then a fundamentally different attitude to what Protestants have: it is the Church that makes the bible, not the bible that makes the Church. Thus a translation can be elevated by the Church to be authoritative scripture. In this case that has happened organically, i.e., council and pope here merely affirm what has happened to the Vulgate. If you read the encyclical, you will also see that this does not deny the authority of the original texts, or the value of translating these into modern languages. It does not even mean that you cannot criticise the Vulgate considered as translation of the original texts. But it means - as the pope says - that the Vulgate has the fullness of juridical power, and is free of error when used to judge faith and morals. I hence can judge faith and morals in the light of the Vulgate, as much as I can do so in terms of the original texts. (And consequently they cannot ultimately contradict each other.) The Vulgate is authoritative scripture in that specific sense.
That's what I was saying before. Since the Vulgate has "maxime", as an RC I can bypass the question whether "namely" would be better here according to the Greek. I know that as far as faith and morals is concerned, I must be able to deal with "especially" - since the Latin does not have the "namely" meaning and I can judge by the Vulgate.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
I've moved the tangent about the Vulgate into another post, because it is interesting.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
We haven’t really established that the Greek could mean ‘namely’ here.
I think we have established that the Greek can mean something best translated as "namely" into English.
No. We have established that at the time of Plato, that word could have been used to mean that. We have not established that it was so used 400 years later.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[...] You can look at all the occurrences of "malista" here, and check both the Greek Interlinear (a "word-by-word" translation to English, below "Thayer's Greek Lexicon") and various "proper" English translations (right column, below "Englishman's Concordance") by clicking on the links. Acts 20:38 sort of works for me with "namely". Acts 26:3 as well. Philippians 4:22, yes. 1 Timothy 5:17, yes (and perhaps most significantly so, given it's in the same letter). 2 Timothy 4:13, maybe? The rest of them, not. In particular Galatians 6:10 seems almost designed to be a counter-example.
So at the end of this exercise, I'm still far from convinced, but I would say that I consider the probability for a "namely" meaning to be higher now than before.
Well, I did check the other instances of malista based on that link, and I'm not convinced that "namely" is the closest meaning. I see a particularity suggested in these passages but not an exclusivity.
quote:
When he had finished speaking, he knelt down with them all and prayed. There was much weeping among them all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, grieving especially because of what he had said, that they would not see him again. (Acts 20:36-38)
That one I'll give you. Although there could have been other reasons the people were weeping, "namely" seems likely here.
quote:
"I consider myself fortunate that it is before you, King Agrippa, I am to make my defence today against all the accusations of the Jews, because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversies of the Jews; therefore I beg of you to listen to me patiently. (Acts 26:2-3)
I doubt that Paul was saying that Agrippa was the only one in the room (at the Jewish court) who knew the customs of the Jews. I hear Paul at his diplomatic best here, perhaps, flattering Agrippa that he has superior knowledge or wisdom, but not exclusive.
quote:
Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The friends who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially those of the emperor’s household. (Philippians 4:21-22)
"So, all the old gang said to say 'Hi!' and the emperor's family really went out of their way to ask to be remembered to you." In other words, there is a matter of degree here, but one particular family's greeting does not rule out everyone else's.
quote:
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching; (1 Tim. 5:17)
I read this as the elders who preach and teach being perhaps worthy of extra amounts of honor, but not to the exclusion of the other elders who simply rule well. Again, it is a matter of degree but not exclusion.
quote:
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments. (2 Tim 4:13)
Paul may have the greater desire or need for the parchments, but I'm pretty sure he wants to see the books, and the cloak too.
Does that shed any light on the question in the OP? Probably not much. But looking at other uses of malista I think it unlikely that 1 Tim 4:10 can only mean that Christ is the Savior only of those who believe.
ETA: ... and thus a little shaky to build a theology upon, in either direction.
[ 30. January 2015, 04:25: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pooks
Shipmate
# 11425
|
Posted
IngoB, I have gone through the 12 references of 'malista'' in the link, but I have only used the NAS link because the INT word for word traslation with it's 'unEnglish' word order makes it harder for me to see which English word, 'especially' or 'namely', would read more naturally and make better sense. I came up with a slightly different yes/no result from your list. In any case, there are enough yes results out of the 12 to make me think 'namely' could be a possible translation. As we are not trying to change all the words from 'especially' to 'namely', but only to see whether it could be a possible translation of the Greek word, at the end of the day we still have to go back to 1 Tim 4:10 to see which understanding of 'malista' fits best in a pastoral letter context.
I have to say, it's actually quite fun doing this exercise and it really wasn't as hard nor did it take as long as I had feared. Cheers!
Posts: 1547 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I doubt that Paul was saying that Agrippa was the only one in the room (at the Jewish court) who knew the customs of the Jews. I hear Paul at his diplomatic best here, perhaps, flattering Agrippa that he has superior knowledge or wisdom, but not exclusive.
That's not what "namely" would do in this verse. Rather, it would specify why Paul was happy to be judged by Agrippa: "I consider myself fortunate to be judged by you, namely because you know all about Jews." That's perfectly normal flattery, and doesn't mean that nobody else knows about Jews.
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
"So, all the old gang said to say 'Hi!' and the emperor's family really went out of their way to ask to be remembered to you." In other words, there is a matter of degree here, but one particular family's greeting does not rule out everyone else's.
This one depends a bit on whom St Paul is with at the time. If he's with many Christians, among them the those of the emperor's household, and if these are particularly enthusiastic to send greetings, then "especially" makes sense. But I think it works better to assume that St Paul is currently hanging only with Christians of the emperor's household. In which case he is saying: "All friends and Christians I'm with say hi, namely those of the emperor's household." That is very natural.
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I read this as the elders who preach and teach being perhaps worthy of extra amounts of honor, but not to the exclusion of the other elders who simply rule well. Again, it is a matter of degree but not exclusion.
I would read this as specifying what it means for an elder to rule well: "Honour particularly those elders who rule well, namely those who put an effort into teaching and preaching." That makes good sense to me. "Namely" specifies the exclusion already made by "ruling well".
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
Paul may have the greater desire or need for the parchments, but I'm pretty sure he wants to see the books, and the cloak too.
Yes, but "namely" would not exclude the cloak, it would specify the books. So Paul would have been saying "... and also get me the books, namely the parchment ones." I put maybe, because I'm not sure whether there were parchment books back then. If no, then obviously this wouldn't work. But if yes, then this could make good sense, because the parchment books would have been the valuable ones. Though especially may still be better then. As I've said, this one is not so clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
But looking at other uses of malista I think it unlikely that 1 Tim 4:10 can only mean that Christ is the Savior only of those who believe. ETA: ... and thus a little shaky to build a theology upon, in either direction.
Nobody has been claiming that. And I agree, the verse alone is not sufficient.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's just a pre-modern Jew's writing running ahead of his mind the way our mouths do. It's got nothing to do with universalism or not. It can't have. How could it? Paul, in Romans, is desperate to include the Jews who reject him and argues himself in to that. So?
The Interlinear resource I used uses RATHERest for malista, a nice word, truer to the etumon I'm sure, which we render 'especially'.
Rather implies a correction, RATHERest, most rather. Paul abrogated the implicit universalism, corrected himself as he went along.
So it DOES have something to do with universalism. We all do it.
[ 31. January 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
