MetaCatholic

When I was looking around blogs (following my previous post on 2 Tim 3:16) I happened to come across both the ESV translation of this verse, and a comment on the ESV website

First the translation:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

This takes the NIV’s etymological treatment of a notorious hapax legomenon a stage further in what I can only describe as blatant translation creep. It’s like some sort of auction for which translation can make this verse more doctrinally powerful. I’ve noted before just how dodgy I think etymology is in defining the meaning of a word. It may be one tool for obscure words, but context and the use and interpretation of native speakers are rather more important. Where those are missing or limited, we should be aware of just what shaky ground etymology gives us to stand on. (Chrysostom in his homily doesn’t even see the word worth commenting on, but moves on to its usefulness).

But as if that isn’t enough, look at the comment on the site:

Second, the ESV is special because it is a “word-for-word” translation. The Bible says every word was “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). For this reason, the ESV seeks to translate the original Greek and Hebrew words with the greatest possible accuracy and precision. (their emphasis).

We’ve moved from the traditional “inspired” of most translations, through the “God-breathed” of the NIV (whether into or out of) to the “breathed out by God” of the ESV text, to this gloss of “every word was breathed out by God”, presumably one at a time! And all this justifies a translation theory, which in a number of places, not least the verse under consideration, the ESV doesn’t even stick to.

Is this a translation for those who don’t care what the Greek text says, as long as the English reinforces their prejudices?

Continuing his interactions on the canon John Hobbins raises some more points about the deuterocanonical books and tradition. He hears one set of comments by Peter Kirk as dismissive both of those books and tradition, and representative of the “standard evangelical position.” While Peter disowns any dismissive intent, his view of them seems dismissive to me, and he simply demarcates between “the Bible” understood as the Protestant canon, and every other religious writing. The deuterocanonicals, the Creeds, the Fathers et al are on a par with any modern writing.

John says “I think Peter shrinks before the thought that tradition might be a means of grace and a vehicle of the work of the Holy Spirit.” Peter responds

As for John 16:12-13, what is wrong with the standard evangelical understanding of this, which is that the particular work of the Holy Spirit to reveal further truth to the apostles took place and was complete during the apostolic age?

The obvious comment is that this is a tradition, and has no clear basis in the text: evangelicals are just as good as catholics at privileging tradition over scripture, they just pretend they’re not doing it.

What John has ably set out in this whole series of his posts is the sheer complexity of scripture, canon, church, tradition and authority in a way that shows how they constantly interplay with one another, and cannot ultimately be defined over against each other.

In this context I note the, to me quite bizarre, comment on a new blog by Lee Dahn,

The Trinity. This term is perhaps the one most commonly questioned, and with good reason. It is not a biblical term. Those who deny the divinity of Christ ought to be answered. But the use of the term “Trinity” doesn’t answer that denial.

This manages to suggest that the whole interpretative tradition by which scripture has been read should be jettisoned because the word used as a shorthand for that tradition is not to be found in the Bible. (This was, of course, one of the main Arian objections to the term homoosuios – of the same substance [as the Father]). This is a denial of that interplay with a vengeance. It also, of course, ignores that fact that there is rather more to Trinitarian doctrine than the divinity of Christ – like the divinity of the Spirit who has apparently been, if not on vacation, then at least working part-time since the last book of the New Testament was written.

It may seem strange in an argument emphasizing the interplay of scripture and tradition but I want to come back to 2 Tim 3:16 in its larger context:

Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness … But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it,  and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  so that everyone who belongs to God the man of God [ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος] may be proficient, equipped for every good work. In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I solemnly urge you: proclaim the message; be persistent whether the time is favorable or unfavorable; convince, rebuke, and encourage, with the utmost patience in teaching. (2 Timothy 3:10, 14 - 4:2  NRSV altered)

I make the following observations:

• (Working with the implicit author and reader) Paul’s company, teaching and example are the context for Timothy’s learning
• “knowing the sacred writings” is bound up with “knowing from whom you learned it”
• Timothy’s ministry is the main context of Paul’s advice, and in that sense “man of God” should be given its normal scriptural meaning, of someone set aside for specific ministry. (cf 1 Tim 6:11 as well)
• A major aspect of the usefulness of inspired scripture is for Timothy in his teaching, reproof, correction and training of others in righteousness, (compare 3:16 with 4:2) as well as for his own needs. Scripture is the teacher’s (and church’s) teaching toolkit.
• In this letter (these three letters) one of the distinguishing characteristics is the handing on of tradition in the form of the “faithful sayings” which are to guide the teacher

Now, I am well aware that “scripture” in 2 Timothy is not “the Bible.” We can’t (as John has shown) even know precisely what books make up Timothy’s canon. But this passage, so often used to set “the Bible” on its own, actually shows scripture functioning within the teaching ministry of the church, with the inheritance and handing on of tradition, and the pattern and example of those who hand it on, as well as being a guide to the teacher’s own individual spiritual and theological formation. Even here (with one of the stronger statements in the canon about some other parts of what would later become that canon) the interplay of church, scripture and tradition is already happening.