A reader writes:
I know my basic theology behind why the Roman Catholic Church does not profess Sola Scriptura. My favorite defense is "the pillar and foundation of truth" of 1 Timothy 3:15.
Today, in talking with some reformed friends, they told me my translation was wrong.
They are referring from the ESV which is reputably very strong on its greek translation – just what I hear, I dunno one way or the other, I’m not a language scholar.
Anyways, according to the ESV, the verse is "A pillar and foundation of truth".
Well the non-definitiveness there certainly ruins the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth. Now, one of the fellows I’m talking to attends Westminster, and he’ll be asking his greek prof about the discrepany between the Greek, the ESV, and all other translations we’ve been looking at.
The concept of definiteness can be tricky across languages–or even within a language. For purposes of comparison, Latin has no definite articles, meaning that you have to determine definiteness by context or simply guess whether it’s there or not.
Greek (the language we are here concerned with) has a definite article ("the") but not indefinite article ("a, an"). The presence of a definite article in Greek makes it somewhat easier to determine definiteness, but it’s not always easy because New Testament Greek doesn’t use the presence (or absence) of the definite article precisely the way we do in English. Sometimes they use it when we wouldn’t (e.g., saying "And the Jesus answered and said . . . "), and sometimes they omit it even though English would require it.
In this case there is no definite article before the phrase "pillar and foundation." The default translation of this phrse would thus either omit any article or supply the indefinite article ("a pillar and founation").
That’s only what one would think looking at the phrase itself, though. Phrases do not exist in isolation but need to be looked at in the overall context of the sentence and the passage in which they occur. The context of the phrase may contain clues about whether the phrase is really definite or indefinite.
Here is how the Englis Standard Version (ESV) translates 1 Timothy 3:15:
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.
Let’s break this up into clauses:
a) I hope to come to you soon,
b) but I am writing these things to you
c) so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God,
d) which is the church of the living God,
e) [which is] a pillar and buttress of truth.
The sentence has two independent clauses, (a) and (b). The first states what Paul hopes to do in the future and the second states what he is doing now.
Clause (b) is then progressively explained by a series of subordinate clauses, (c), (d), and (e).
The purposes of why Paul is doing (b) is explained by (c), which ends with the phrase "household of God." This phrase is then clarified further by (d) and (e).
Now here’s the thing: While it’s true that the phrase "pillar and buttress of truth" in clause (e) does not have a definite article, neither do the phrases "church of the living God" in clause (d) or the prhase "household of God" in clause (c).
This is important because, as we noted, context may indicate definiteness or indefiniteness. One cannot rely exclusively on the presence or absence of the definite article.
A common-sense take on the relationship of these clauses suggests that they all share the same definiteness or indefiniteness. Clauses (d) and (e) seem to just clarify the expression "household of God" at the end of (c). If the noun phrases in (c) and (d) are definite then one would naturally take the noun phrase in (e) as definite as well.
Thus it is inconsistent for the ESV to suddenly go indefinite in clause (e). To translate with consistency on this point, one would either render the verse:
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in A household of God, which is A church of the living God, A pillar and buttress of truth.
or
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in THE household of God, which is THE church of the living God, THE pillar and buttress of truth.
The latter rendering seems more likely to me–among other reasons because the phrase "household of God" is non-standard. It’s not the kind of thing descriptor of the Church that early Christians normally used. They used it sometimes, to be sure, but not in the rote manner that they used the term "church." As a result, it seems less likely to me that Paul would lead off by using a non-standard term in an indefinite manner ("a household of God") than that he would use it in a definite manner.
Most translations, including the ESV, seem to agree with me, at least as far as taking the phrase as definite. Consistency would then urge one to render the parallel noun phrases in clauses (d) and (e) as definite as well. Most translations also seem to do that, though the ESV (for some reason) does not.
There can be reasons not to translate consistently, but you need a reason not to do so. I don’t see any reason in the grammar to suddenly shift from being definite to indefinite in how one is rendering this string of noun phrases. It could be a theological reason why the ESV translators do it (e.g., because they don’t want to make such a strong claim about the Church), but that’s simply speculation on my point. They don’t say (to my knowledge) why they switched to indefinite, so we can only guess.
In the absence of a clear-cut reason for the shift, though, it still seems to me that the most natural to take the phrase as definite.
Even if that were not the case, though, it wouldn’t "ruin the claim that the Church is the sole interpretive authority on earth." The Church’s claim to having the unique authority to make final determinations regarding the meaning of Scripture is not dependent on this verse. The Church has that authority, but it does not need this verse to prove it. One may argue back and forth about the degree to which this truth is reflected in this or any other verse, but it is not dependent on this verse.
Further, whether one takes the final phrase definitely or indefinitely, the verse certainly makes a very strong statement about the Church’s role in relationship to the truth. You don’t need the article to tell you that.
Excellent.
Well, I didn’t mean to say that it would ruin the argument completely… just ruins the definitive nature of the argument that stems from this passage which is (or at least was) very much clear. It was very much one of the few difficult-to-refute points until a few days ago š
I agree whole heartedly that regardless of the outcome, the passage (along with others) still makes a very strong argument for the authority of the Chuch; however, the problem with it is that the other side now equivalates Scripture or makes it superior to the Church because non-definitiveness allows them the benefit of the doubt so to speak – and we’re back to where we started.
I think the passage is still as strong as ever, AC. Jimmy makes a strong case that Paul is speaking in a definite mode, so to speak. The ESV translation, however solid its credentials may be, is inconsistent to supply “the” for “household of God” and “church of the living God,” but then deny it to “pillar and foundation of truth.”
Hmm… I always assumed the Greek “tis” would be used to show the indefinite, but I looked it up and I guess it is an indefinite pronoun and not an indefinite article. No doubt there’s a subtle grammatical difference to which I am not attuned.
“which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.”
Put that way, it looks like pillar and buttress of truth is describing the living God.
Right… I don’t mean to suggest that the “traditional” translation is wrong… it is just that people disagreeing about it ruins the effectiveness of the argument. It boils down to a “your stupid translation” vs. “my superior translation” thing. And that leaves us no better off than some of the other disagreements and arguments we have.
I don’t really want to question the integrity of the ESV translators; however, I think the ESV translators should dialogue and debate with others about their reasoning for it. It is a signifcant departure from all the other translations out there that I have seen.
I think Jimmy’s argument is solid, personally. So why the disagreement with ESV? Only they can answer that. Perhaps this will fuel that dialogue.
I’ve always liked this critique of Sola Scriptura
http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/5.3/nutsandbolts.htm
In fact, not that I have anything against it, but I’ve never really used the verse being discussed here.
Well, by that standard, the effectiveness of all arguments is ruined, because there’s no argument that someone won’t contest! But there are arguments that are worth making and defending and ones that aren’t.
In this case, if someone said to me, “It should be ‘a pillar and foundation of truth,'” I think I would reply, “Should it also be ‘a household of God, which is a church of the living God’?”
I would also reply, “Even if the church were only a pillar and foundation of truth — which doesn’t seem to be what St. Paul is saying — wouldn’t that still be a sticking point for the notion that scripture and scripture alone should be the sole foundational source of truth?”
True that last sentence. I thought of it yesterday after my initial shell shock of “what is going on?!?!”
I’m just griping about disagreeing about the translation – it sucks when you can’t even agree on translation. It leaves each side thinking they have an agenda in the back of their mind other than getting at the truth. …kinda like discussing Scripture with Jehova Witnesses.
“Put that way, it looks like pillar and buttress of truth is describing the living God.”
If so, Ben, then wouldn’t the definite have to be used consistantly in those 2 clauses as well? If the Living God is only a pillar & buttress of truth, then . . . what are the other pillars that are equal to God? I think this only makes Jimmy’s points re: the consistent use of definite v. indefinite articles in the translation of Greek that much stronger.
Jimmy, if you check this thread again . . . Isn’t it the New World translation of the Bible that Jehovah’s Witnesses use that translates John 1:1 like this: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God”? (My emphasis.) Unlike JWs, Catholics believe that Christ, to Whom John is referring in this verse, is part of the Triune God. How might, or might not, the use of the articles “a” & “the” you describe in your post relate to this?
Thank you – nicely explained.
>>I’m just griping about disagreeing about the translation – it sucks when you can’t even agree on translation.
I always thought the translation issues themselves refute Sola Scriptura. The fact that you need language experts and that they don’t always agree, etc. is proof in and of itself that ‘The Bible alone’ is a futile proposition. The only way that could be supportable is if we all still spook/read Greek at an expert level AND had the original Greek manuscripts. As soon as translation comes into play, by definition, you have introduced something extra-biblical and the whole house of cards falls apart.
Or rather is the argument Sola Scriptura + the multitude of infallible translators/copyist. š
And it seems to me that your point, Steve, is exactly why not a few Protestants consider the King James translation “inspired” – that way they skirt these issues & keep their (extra-Biblical) Sola Scriptura views alive. I’m never heard any convincing reasoning behind such a position, either.
I really enjoyed this post. This blog could use more “Jimmy Exegetes Scripture” entries, couldn’t it?
If the Church is just A pillar and buttress, I would ask my Protestant friends to name a few more. Surely, they would bring up Scripture, but if you look at it, Scripture’s authority comes from the Church. So the Church is even more fundamental, more foundational, more buttressy than Scripture, right? No Church, no Scripture. Even the Mormons know (and bemoan) that.
What other pillars and buttresses are there? Newspapers, mothers, preachers, Lutherans, sports cars, Denny’ses, Godzilla movies, Boy Scouts, etc … while these are all great things, none of them can rightly be called “A pillar and buttress” or even “THE pillar and buttress.”
I mean, c’mon! How many pillars and buttresses of Truth can a person have? It’s not like they grow on trees, people!
Why does every article in that sentence have to be either definite or indefinite?
“Tom’s house is A house on Baker’s Street, and is THE biggest house in the world.”
“God is THE one true God, and is THE creator of heaven and earth, and is A friend to all mankind.”
Now, I’m not arguing that the Church isn’t the pillar and foundation of truth… it surely is. Nor am I arguing that that is not what the text says. But, I just don’t understand the logic of your argument, Jimmy.
Blogworthies LXII
Blogworthies: A weekly round-up of noteworthy entries from a variety of weblogs on a variety of topics.
alas ! my favorite translation has departed from the RSV and most other translations
I love the English Standard Version but it is evident that the translators had other concerns
thanks, Jimmy. I hadn’t noticed that
I believe there are many debates about this. In this verse it is referring to the church of the living God, but no matter how you interpret itā¦ you cannot separate the Bible from the Church, or separate JESUS from the CHURCH, although some have tried in the past. Itās like saying be a soldier without a weapon or a cause. In John 14:6 says, āJesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”ā I believe Jesus canāt be any more clearer than thatā¦ HE IS THE TRUTH.
Iāve read debates and arguments regarding this, but these things doesnāt profit anybody except SATAN (who promotes confusion among the believers, and gloats over this ). However, people tend to make a mistake on personifying the Church and the Bible as separate. But one tend to be useless without the other. A church without a bible would be just like an ordinary club, an association. A bible with out a church would be just like an ordinary book. BUT because JESUS IS GOD, and He is IN THE BIBLE, and He is IN THE CHURCHā¦ it is something AWESOME. Then, we are talking more than a building and more than paper and ink.