In my christological studies, I have frequently noted that Titus has been a little book that is a bit... well, different. More recently, in 2018 during my research into translation options for KYRIOS, I even noted that it was one of 4 new Testament titles that completely fails to mention the word (as if that were each book's mission). But my initial reason for noticing the uniqueness of Titus was that among the epistles accredited to Paul, I found strong evidence (approx. 90% "suggestive") in English for metaphysical connection in the author's thinking between "God" and Jesus Christ the Saviour. But for the author there is strong distinction too even in English. In English, he does not seem particularly purposeful in stressing one or the other, which might suit Two-Natures doctrines quite nicely: the doctrine might be said to simply "flow".
In English, Titus struck me as different because on several occasions it seemed that Jesus was simply understood as God our Saviour, or that the title was used indiscriminately between the Father and the Son. On 1 March 2016, however, I was struck by what may well be a theological assumption on the part of those translating the Greek in the opening verses of Titus, which contain a translation problem. Why is it problematic? It's to do with possessives (genitive).
It's not perfect, but let's first take an example of a local member of parliament. In British English we talk all the time of "our MP". Ben Bradshaw has been Exeter's Labour MP since 1997. As citizens of Exeter, Bradshaw was "our" MP. For the first 10 years, Bradshaw was Tony Blair's MP for Exeter too, but the possessive construction here means something quite different. In my family and entourage, we were just several of many thousands of constituents of Bradshaw, our sole MP. For Blair, Bradshaw was just one of dozens of MPs across the country, but note that Bradshaw was also Blair's one-and-only MP for Exeter. So how might you express grammatically and using both possessives the different relationships between the following?
In English, Titus struck me as different because on several occasions it seemed that Jesus was simply understood as God our Saviour, or that the title was used indiscriminately between the Father and the Son. On 1 March 2016, however, I was struck by what may well be a theological assumption on the part of those translating the Greek in the opening verses of Titus, which contain a translation problem. Why is it problematic? It's to do with possessives (genitive).
It's not perfect, but let's first take an example of a local member of parliament. In British English we talk all the time of "our MP". Ben Bradshaw has been Exeter's Labour MP since 1997. As citizens of Exeter, Bradshaw was "our" MP. For the first 10 years, Bradshaw was Tony Blair's MP for Exeter too, but the possessive construction here means something quite different. In my family and entourage, we were just several of many thousands of constituents of Bradshaw, our sole MP. For Blair, Bradshaw was just one of dozens of MPs across the country, but note that Bradshaw was also Blair's one-and-only MP for Exeter. So how might you express grammatically and using both possessives the different relationships between the following?
- Exeter (citizens)
- The Prime Minister
- The Member of Parlement
Here's an even better example. A school, "St Thomas", has exactly one Biology teacher, Mr Haggis. Billie and Julie are in that school, and both the following statements are true:
But, clearly, it does not follow that either:
That's quite clear, is it not? The "of" possessive prepositions do not signify that the middle party, Mr Haggis, has only one kind of unique Biology-teacher-relationships. Paradoxically, he has many! The confusion has typically occurred because there happens to be just the one biology teacher, and that uniqueness has been conflated to fuse the middle and upper party for the purpose of some anachronistic translation methods.
PUPILS --> HAVE EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER
SCHOOL --> HAS EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER
However, it is a quite awkward combination of things to try to express both these unique relationships in one short sentence in English. So again, we could appeal to a different preposition and maybe even a repetition: Billie and Julie's Biology teacher, Mr Haggis, the Biology Teacher for St Thomas. The combination of "the" and "for" pack a powerful punch: he's the one.
So, I think it is precisely this combination that the Pauline author is condensing in Titus 1:3-4 and 3:4-7, and I think we can demonstrate it.
Verse 3 concludes: according to the command of the saviour of us of God.
Of the Saviour of us: tou [OF THE] Sōtēros [SAVIOUR] hēmōn [OF US]
Of God: Theou [OF GOD]
In full:
Verse 4 continues immediately to state:
The Saviour of us is there again, although this time seemingly much more clearly distinguished from the one who is called God, the Father. Wow, that's a fast turnaround.
The exact same pattern of 1:3 returns in Titus 3:4, so whatever the Pauline writer was saying here, this grammar is a strong, consistent and even logical reflection of his thinking on this.
You could even say Paul was saying Jesus Christ is our "God saviour", but the hyphen almost self copy-pastes in so I'd caution against it! No, the author is simultaneously stating that Jesus Christ is God's and our means of salvation.
So I find myself now in 2018 as sceptical of the NIV interpretation of Titus 1:3 as I was when I first wrote this post over two years ago, precisely because of the consistency of the grammar, the contexts and the logic.
I hope I'm getting better at positively looking forward these days with some helpful alternatives. So what could I suggest given our examples and brief examination of the grammar? I might go for:
...According to the command of God's Saviour for us, Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
What I think it achieves is a much more consistent reading of Titus, whereby the Saviour is consistently Christ. Christ is God's saviour, not that he saved God, but that he is the saviour through whom God mediates salvation for man.
Looking outside the box briefly, Jesus is God's saviour and God's Messiah elsewhere in Scripture too:
Acts 13:23 reads:
From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Saviour Jesus, as he promised.
Revelation 11:15 reads:
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.
This is not an anti-trinitarian argument, it is a non-trinitarian argument over which various interpretations should be able to find agreement, since I doubt Trinitarians would hold that "Jesus is of God" to be unorthodox - that would seem to fit with a conviction that Scriptures teach the eternal generation by the Father of the Son, who was sent by the Father into the world. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the connections between us and the one Saviour and God is clear.
I also concede that in 2 Timothy 1:10 the genitive following "saviour of us" states "Christ Jesus" but I stress that this is a secondary consideration from a separate context and document.
- Mr Haggis is St Thomas' Biology teacher: Mr Haggis is the Biology teacher of St Haggis
- Mr Haggis is Billie and Julie's Biology teacher: Mr Haggis is the Biology teacher of Billie and Julie
But, clearly, it does not follow that either:
Billie and Julie are St ThomasMr Haggis is St Thomas
That's quite clear, is it not? The "of" possessive prepositions do not signify that the middle party, Mr Haggis, has only one kind of unique Biology-teacher-relationships. Paradoxically, he has many! The confusion has typically occurred because there happens to be just the one biology teacher, and that uniqueness has been conflated to fuse the middle and upper party for the purpose of some anachronistic translation methods.
PUPILS --> HAVE EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER
SCHOOL --> HAS EXACTLY ONE --> BIOLOGY TEACHER
However, it is a quite awkward combination of things to try to express both these unique relationships in one short sentence in English. So again, we could appeal to a different preposition and maybe even a repetition: Billie and Julie's Biology teacher, Mr Haggis, the Biology Teacher for St Thomas. The combination of "the" and "for" pack a powerful punch: he's the one.
So, I think it is precisely this combination that the Pauline author is condensing in Titus 1:3-4 and 3:4-7, and I think we can demonstrate it.
Verse 3 concludes: according to the command of the saviour of us of God.
Of the Saviour of us: tou [OF THE] Sōtēros [SAVIOUR] hēmōn [OF US]
Of God: Theou [OF GOD]
In full:
|
Verse 4 continues immediately to state:
| to Titus, | N-DMS | |||
| 1103 [e] | gnēsiō | γνησίῳ | [my] true | Adj-DNS |
| 5043 [e] | teknō | τέκνῳ | child, | N-DNS |
| 2596 [e] | kata | κατὰ | according to | Prep |
| 2839 [e] | koinēn | κοινὴν | [our] common | Adj-AFS |
| 4102 [e] | pistin | πίστιν· | faith: | N-AFS |
| 5485 [e] | charis | χάρις | Grace | N-NFS |
| 2532 [e] | kai | καὶ | and | Conj |
| 1515 [e] | eirēnē | εἰρήνη | peace | N-NFS |
| 575 [e] | apo | ἀπὸ | from | Prep |
| 2316 [e] | Theou | Θεοῦ | God | N-GMS |
| 3962 [e] | Patros | Πατρὸς | [the] Father, | N-GMS |
| 2532 [e] | kai | καὶ | and | Conj |
| 5547 [e] | Christou | Χριστοῦ | Christ | N-GMS |
| 2424 [e] | Iēsou | Ἰησοῦ | Jesus, | N-GMS |
| 3588 [e] | tou | τοῦ | the | Art-GMS |
| 4990 [e] | Sōtēros | Σωτῆρος | Savior | N-GMS |
| 1473 [e] | hēmōn | ἡμῶν. | of us. |
The Saviour of us is there again, although this time seemingly much more clearly distinguished from the one who is called God, the Father. Wow, that's a fast turnaround.
The exact same pattern of 1:3 returns in Titus 3:4, so whatever the Pauline writer was saying here, this grammar is a strong, consistent and even logical reflection of his thinking on this.
You could even say Paul was saying Jesus Christ is our "God saviour", but the hyphen almost self copy-pastes in so I'd caution against it! No, the author is simultaneously stating that Jesus Christ is God's and our means of salvation.
So I find myself now in 2018 as sceptical of the NIV interpretation of Titus 1:3 as I was when I first wrote this post over two years ago, precisely because of the consistency of the grammar, the contexts and the logic.
I hope I'm getting better at positively looking forward these days with some helpful alternatives. So what could I suggest given our examples and brief examination of the grammar? I might go for:
...According to the command of God's Saviour for us, Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
What I think it achieves is a much more consistent reading of Titus, whereby the Saviour is consistently Christ. Christ is God's saviour, not that he saved God, but that he is the saviour through whom God mediates salvation for man.
Looking outside the box briefly, Jesus is God's saviour and God's Messiah elsewhere in Scripture too:
Acts 13:23 reads:
From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel the Saviour Jesus, as he promised.
Revelation 11:15 reads:
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said:‘The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and ever.
This is not an anti-trinitarian argument, it is a non-trinitarian argument over which various interpretations should be able to find agreement, since I doubt Trinitarians would hold that "Jesus is of God" to be unorthodox - that would seem to fit with a conviction that Scriptures teach the eternal generation by the Father of the Son, who was sent by the Father into the world. Furthermore, the uniqueness of the connections between us and the one Saviour and God is clear.
I also concede that in 2 Timothy 1:10 the genitive following "saviour of us" states "Christ Jesus" but I stress that this is a secondary consideration from a separate context and document.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks very much for your feedback, really appreciate the interaction.