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

Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Sun Jun 15 18:36:27 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 Š 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
>
I think that Elizabeth is right in agreeing with Metzger. While this 
is not the place to discuss textual criticism, the textual history 
here shows that a number of scribes independent of each other sought 
to interpret the text in a way that would remove what sounded harsh 
to their ears. Surely the more dificult reading is the corrected one, 
corrected in different ways by different scribes. This points to the 
text as printed in the UBS/NA as the original which sounded harsh to 
the ear. In reality I think that relationship of TOU QEOU should be 
with all the fellow workers who belong to God. The scribe of B (ca 
350 CE) simply omitted TOU QEOU, which cleared up the problem nicely.

-- 
Carlton L. Winbery
Retired Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
318-448-6103
winberycl at earthlink.net



More information about the B-Greek mailing list