Translation of 1 Tim 3:15

  • Thread starter Thread starter greggb11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

greggb11

Guest
What is the proper translation and why for 1 Tim 3:15? (NAB)… the pillar and foundation of truth. Or (ESV)… a pillar and buttress of the truth. I feel that either way is still supportive of the Catholic Church’s teaching of one true church, but one says something different then the other.
 
They say the same thing, a foundation serves as a buttress for an entier structure, the KJV “bulwark” also is appropriate. Just different ways of saying the same thing, the Catholic Church is the upholder and defender of the truth. If you want a sampling of how different bibles handle this verse go back to the main apologetics forum and check out the Judgmentday May 12st 2011 thread.
 
I don’t think the question is about “foundation” or “buttress” but why the ESV reads “a pillar…” and the NAB reads “the pillar…”. Thats a BIG difference in my book. :hmmm:
 
Ah, sorry I didn’t catch that… Greek interliniar shows suggests the, but in the text it’s bracketed which to me indicates the word is implied but perhaps not literally there?

Greek interliniar
15: ean <1437> de <1161> {BUT IF} bradunw <1019> (5725) {I SHOULD DELAY,} ina <2443> {THAT} eidhV <1492> (5762) {THOU MAYEST KNOW} pwV <4459> {HOW} dei <1163> (5904) {IT BEHOOVES [ONE]} en <1722> {IN [THE]} oikw <3624> {HOUSE} qeou <2316> {OF GOD} anastrefesqai <390> (5745) {TO CONDUCT ONESELF,} htiV <3748> {WHICH} estin <2076> (5748) {IS} ekklhsia <1577> {[THE] ASSEMBLY} qeou <2316> {OF GOD [THE]} zwntoV <2198> (5723) {LIVING,} stuloV <4769> {PILLAR} kai <2532> {AND} edraiwma <1477> {BASE} thV <3588> {OF THE} alhqeiaV <225> {TRUTH.}
It appears that the ESV is a version of the more literal RSV publisehd by Crossway Books (Good news Publishers) which is an Evangelical publishing house, thus it’s fair to assume the ESV has Evangelical slants.

The base version (RSV) shows:
15: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
 
kkelley is correct in my question, thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut though!
 
Thanks crazzeto,
I dont know why there has to be a word implied there. It reads fine as “…,pillar and base of the truth.” I do like the word bulwark, for its implications as defender “defensive wall,” but that is my personal choice!

God bless,

Gregg
 
It would read a little odd w/o the implied “the”, I think that’s why it’s there.
 
The problem here is the ESV’s evangelical protestant twist on the verse. The only other version of the Bible that I have found which uses “a” rather than “the” is the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation.

Its unfortunate. :coffeeread:
 
The problem here is the ESV’s evangelical protestant twist on the verse. The only other version of the Bible that I have found which uses “a” rather than “the” is the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation.

Its unfortunate. :coffeeread:
Yeah, even the typically more slanted ISV uses “the”… Odd.
 
took this last part of 3:15 off my computer

the pillar and base of the truth. DARBY

the pillar and ground of the truth. ASV

the pillar and ground of the truth. AV 1873

the pillar and ground of the truth. DRB

a pillar and buttress of the truth. ESV

the pillar and foundation of the truth. HCSB

the pillar and foundation of the truth. ISV

the pillar and ground of the truth. KJV

the pillar and support of the truth. NASB95

the support and bulwark of the truth. NET

the pillar and foundation of the truth. NIV

the pillar and ground of the truth. NKJV

the pillar and bulwark of the truth. RSV

the pillar and foundation of the truth. TNIV

a pillar and foundation of the truth, YLT
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is the Greek text of I Timothy 3:15 with variant readings (of which there are none).

You’ll notice that the 5th word from the end is the beginning of the phrase “pillar and ground of the truth.” The reason the ESV doesn’t include the definite article is based on the fact that the article is absent from the Greek text. The only word in this phrase that has the definite article is the word translated “truth.” So, basically, the ESV translators can only legitimately be criticized for translating the text literally, as does the YLT (Youngs LITERAL Translation) that was cited in the last post.

I believe that the definite article can be properly adduced from the text since I don’t believe Paul would have had any other group at that time in mind as an alternative “pillar and ground.” Is it really necessary, though, to bash those people who have motives unknown to you (unknown merely because you choose not to give them a fair consideration because your minds are predeterminedly made up about them)? Geesh! Imagine if they’d tossed in Irenaeus’ quotation about the Scriptures being the pillar and ground of our faith (newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm). :eek:
 
I don’t think the question is about “foundation” or “buttress” but why the ESV reads “a pillar…” and the NAB reads “the pillar…”. Thats a BIG difference in my book. :hmmm:
As decreasing pointed out, the Greek does not have ‘the’ in there. It just reads ekklēsia Theou zōontos, stylos kai hedraiōma tēs alētheias, “church of living God, pillar and hedraiōma of the Truth.” Note the definite tēs before alētheias (‘Truth’), which is absent before stylos (‘pillar, column’).

Now the word hedraiōma: it is a neologism - it is undocumented in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek prior to this - derived from the adjective hedraios, meaning ‘seated’, ‘settled’ or ‘fixed’ (and by extension, ‘steadfast’, ‘firm’ or ‘solid’), which in turn issued the verb hedraioō. Hedraiōma was formed with the -ma suffix that specifies the result of an action. A Greek fragment of St. Irenaeus’ Adversus Haereses paraphrased it as stylos kai stērigma “pillar and support (from stērizein ‘to prop’).”
 
decreasing,

I appreciate your contribution to this question! With your explanation on why it shouldn’t be “the pillar…” you don’t explain why it should be “a pillar…” Did the translators for the ESV imply “the” in front of “household of God” they seem to call it “the household of God” and not “a household of God” but I do not understand the Greek?

Then what about the next phrase, by your explanation shouldn’t it translate to “Church of a living God”?

My point is by putting an “a” there instead of “the” it is misleading, at least to me.

Thanks for pointing out St. Irenaeus’ quotation because the Gospels are the “ground and pillar of our faith” that is why they are documents preserved and used by the Church to give us the truth of our faith.
 
Without the definitive article, or any article for that matter, it should read:

“the Church of the living God, pillar and buttress of truth.”

That would be the most literal, except…how would they who were reading Greek as a first language have understood it?

Without the “a” I think it is clear that only “the” will work here. :idea:
 
decreasing,

I appreciate your contribution to this question! With your explanation on why it shouldn’t be “the pillar…” you don’t explain why it should be “a pillar…” Did the translators for the ESV imply “the” in front of “household of God” they seem to call it “the household of God” and not “a household of God” but I do not understand the Greek?

Then what about the next phrase, by your explanation shouldn’t it translate to “Church of a living God”?

My point is by putting an “a” there instead of “the” it is misleading, at least to me.

Thanks for pointing out St. Irenaeus’ quotation because the Gospels are the “ground and pillar of our faith” that is why they are documents preserved and used by the Church to give us the truth of our faith.
I actually wasn’t arguing either way, Gregg. I was simply pointing out the lack of the article in the original language, the lack of a variant and that this is a legitimate translation. I believe that it is just as legitimate to translate it “the pillar,” but I don’t think it has to be said in order for it to be understood (didn’t I say this already?).

As far as the whole “a God” business: to my knowledge (which is far less adequate than I’d like to admit) “God” doesn’t need to be translated with the article in many cases based on the fact that it is implied (as “the pillar”) and would be redundant. There are syntactical reasons, I believe, but all my books are packed and I can’t cite it for you now. Sorry. 🤷

About Irenaeus’ quote: He was arguing against the Gnostics, who were arguing for oral tradition to override the Scriptures. For some reason, I don’t think this would be a good citation for a Roman Catholic…
 
About Irenaeus’ quote: He was arguing against the Gnostics, who were arguing for oral tradition to override the Scriptures. For some reason, I don’t think this would be a good citation for a Roman Catholic…
Whoa. If it’s not a good citation for a Catholic (I assume you mean the 23 autonomous particular churches which comprise the Catholic Church, not just the Latin Rite), then you should include the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, since they pretty much hold the same beliefs as we do - and since the other 22 particular churches in union with the Latin church have the same heritage as they. What are we left then?

If we’re going to do it all the way, it would be a mouthful though. According to you, it wouldn’t be a good citation for a Roman (Latin) Catholic, a Coptic Catholic, an Ethiopian Catholic, a Maronite Catholic, a Syriac Catholic, a Syro-Malankara Catholic, an Armenian Catholic, a Chaldean Catholic, a Syro-Malabar Catholic, an Albanian Catholic, a Belarusian Catholic, a Bulgarian Catholic, a Croatian Greek Catholic, a Greek Byzantine Catholic, a Hungarian Catholic, an Italo-Albanian Catholic, a Macedonian Catholic, a Melkite Greek Catholic, a Romanian Catholic, a Russian Catholic, a Ruthenian Catholic, a Slovak Catholic, or a Ukranian Catholic! And we’re still just talking about Catholics! 😛

Now to put the jokes aside. St. Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses does refer to the apostolic Gospel, handed down in written documents, as the ground of the faith of the Church.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar (fundamentum et columnam) of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” (perfectam agnitionem) as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually (pariter et singuli) possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
  • 3.1.1
It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the pillar and ground (columna et firmamentum; stylos de kai stērigma) of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sits upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation,“You that sits between the cherubim, shine forth.” For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God.
  • 3.11.8
In the first quote, St. Irenaeus argues that each of the Apostles who imparted the one Gospel to the Church, first in worldwide preaching and then in writings possessed perfect knowledge from the Holy Spirit, countering arguments that they preached prior to having perfect knowledge and thus removes the heretics’ ground for postulating themselves as ones who improve the Apostles. Irenaeus taught that the Spirit at His descent, gave all the Apostles the perfect knowledge of the one Gospel, which they preached to the world and eventually found expression in four different written accounts.

In St. Irenaeus’ idea, since the church is dispersed throughout the quadriform world in a quadriform manner and has for its support the Gospel and the life-giving Spirit, it follows that the Church should have four pillars which, from every quarter of the earth, regenerate men. The Church’s support consists of the Spirit-given Gospel which the Spirit applies in a vivifying manner to men throughout the world. Therefore he presents first the image of the Church dispersed and regenerated throughout the quadriform earth by the four pillars of Gospel and Spirit.

I don’t see anything here that contradicts Catholic teaching…🤷
 
Thanks for the post Patrick, I couldn’t agree more.

I can see that “decreasing” posts in contradiction to what his name implies, by the chest puffing attacks he cannot help but make at the end of his posts towards the Catholic Church.

These forums would be more benificial to all of us if we avoided those types of posts.

Everyone, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut! I think I will stick to my original thought that either way it is still supportive of the Catholic Church’s teaching of one true church, but by putting “a” there it is misleading. It just makes the conversation a little longer!
 
Thanks for the post Patrick, I couldn’t agree more.

I can see that “decreasing” posts in contradiction to what his name implies, by the chest puffing attacks he cannot help but make at the end of his posts towards the Catholic Church.

These forums would be more benificial to all of us if we avoided those types of posts.

Everyone, thanks for all the (name removed by moderator)ut! I think I will stick to my original thought that either way it is still supportive of the Catholic Church’s teaching of one true church, but by putting “a” there it is misleading. It just makes the conversation a little longer!
To decreasing’s credit, at least he doesn’t descend into the level where the poster just types in capslock and horrible grammar while throwing out all the swear words that the English language has. People who are do not stoop low into such uncivility are highly regarded in my book. 🙂

BTW, a closer reading of St. Irenaeus shows that he doesn’t contradict St. Paul, though he does adapt the latter’s expression a bit (he uses another word in place of St. Paul’s neologism). St. Paul says that the ‘pillar and foundation’ of the Truth is the Church, while St. Irenaeus adds that the ‘pillar and support’ of said Church is the one Gospel, originally passed by word-of-mouth and later expressed in four written accounts, and the Holy life-giving Spirit. 🙂
 
Regardless of the incidental word “a” or “the”, it really seems strange that anyone would use scripture to prove the church. :rolleyes: Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The Catholic Church founded by Christ Jesus, interprets the scriptures. We will need to do a lot of evangelizing to help noncatholics understand the importance of Divine Tradition and magisterial teaching, which go hand in hand with understanding the scriptures, and even more so. 🙂
 
Regardless of the incidental word “a” or “the”, it really seems strange that anyone would use scripture to prove the church. :rolleyes: Shouldn’t it be the other way around? The Catholic Church founded by Christ Jesus, interprets the scriptures. We will need to do a lot of evangelizing to help noncatholics understand the importance of Divine Tradition and magisterial teaching, which go hand in hand with understanding the scriptures, and even more so. 🙂
While I get what you’re trying to say, I think what must be kept in mind is the fact that the only authority the peope we’re refquently conversing with is the bible. More over, since the bible is the written immutable tradition of the church, one must admit that if it DID contradict what we say about the church and her authority then maybe they’d have a point. But that’s not the case, an authoritative church can be seen all over Scripture. Most directly here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top