[B-Greek] 1 Thess 3:2.. Was Timothy Paul’s or God’s co-worker?

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sun Jun 15 16:43:13 EDT 2008


  :

> From: Noel Fitzpatrick <noel.fitzpatrick at ucd.ie>
> Date: June 13, 2008 4:51:06 PM EDT
> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: 1 Thess 3:2.. Was Timothy Paul’s or God’s co-worker?
>
>
> For part of 1 Thess 3:2 Daniel Wallace supports the
> translation “Timothy, our … fellow worker for God”
> (http://www.csntm.org/essays/1thess3.2.pdf).
>
> However many translations give “God's fellow worker” (e.g. NAU) , or
> its equivalent, for this verse.
>
> The problem is not a textual one, as Wallace supports the Greek as in
> the UBS GNT (4th Ed. Revised) – Western Text: TIMOQEON, TON ADELFON
> HMWN KAI SUNERGON TOU QEOU.
>
> Wallace observed “TOU QEOU does not have to be taken as a genitive of
> association. It is quite possible that HMWN functions as possessive-
> associative and QEOU functions simply as a possessive".
>
> In GGBB (p 130) Wallace uses the translation “co-worker for God”.
>
> Is this a case of “both/and” where both God’s and Paul’s co-worker are
> acceptable translations?  Alternatively is it a case of “either/or”,
> and if so which translation is preferable, bearing in mind Occam’s
> razor that in this verse the simplest translation of  “SUNERGON TOU
> QEOU as “God’s co-worker” is preferable?
>
> I would welcome comments.
>
> Noel Fitzpatrick
> Dublin, Ireland.

The text (USB,NA),
1TH. 3:2 KAI EPEMYAMEN TIMOQEON, TON ADELFON hHMWN KAI SUNERGON TOU  
QEOU EN TWi EUAGGELIWi TOU CRISTOU, EIS TO STHRIXAI hUMAS KAI  
PARAKALESAI hUPER THS PISTEWS hUMWN

We might expect a SUN compound to construe with dative of person,  
which SUNERGOS does E.Hipp. 525, Thucid. 3:63 and we might not expect  
it to construe with the genitive of person (LSJ 1711 rarely c.gen of  
person). When it is found with a gen. (not personal) it means  
something like helping towards E.Hipp. 626, E.Med 845, E.Bacc 512.  
When it does take a genitive of person the associative isn't the most  
obvious way to understand the genitive but we should first and  
foremost look at how Paul uses SUNERGOS with the genitive of person.

The only other place in the NT where we are confronted with SUNERGOS  
and QHOU is 1cor. 3:9.

1COR. 3:9 QEOU GAR ESMEN SUNERGOI, QEOU GEWRGION, QEOU OIKODOMH ESTE.

After reading this in context and looking at Fee, Thiselton, Plummer,  
Meyer, I am not certain how this should be construed.

Other places where Paul uses SUNERGOS with the genitive of person:

ROM. 16:3 ASPASASQE PRISKAN KAI AKULAN TOUS SUNERGOUS MOU EN CRISTWi  
IHSOU,
ROM. 16:9 ASPASASQE OURBANON TON SUNERGON hHMWN EN CRISTWi KAI STACUN  
TON AGAPHTON MOU.
ROM. 16:21 ASPAZETAI hUMAS TIMOQEOS hO SUNERGOS MOU KAI LOUKIOS KAI  
IASWN KAI SWSIPATROS hOI SUGGENEIS MOU.
1COR. 3:9 QEOU GAR ESMEN SUNERGOI, QEOU GEWRGION, QEOU OIKODOMH ESTE.
PHIL. 2:25 ANAGKAION DE hHGHSAMHN EPAFRODITON TON ADELFON KAI SUNERGON  
KAI SUSTRATIWTHN MOU, hUMWN DE APOSTOLON KAI LEITOURGON THS CREIAS  
MOU, PEMYAI PROS hUMAS,
PHILEM. 24 MARKOS, ARISTARCOS, DHMAS, LOUKAS, hOI SUNERGOI MOU.


The textual history 1TH. 3:2 is important. Metzger (Text Comm, 1st  
ed.) is most likely correct that the history of the variants can be  
best explained by scribes balking at the theological implications of  
SUNERGON TOU QEOU.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list