Author: dopderbeck

Continuing my reading of 1 Peter, I’ve come to the ominous sounding text of 1 Peter 4:7:  “The end of all things is near; therefore be serious and discipline yourselves for the sake of your prayers.”  (NRSV).  (Πάντων δὲ τὸ τέλος ἤγγικεν. σωφρονήσατε οὖν καὶ νήψατε εἰς προσευχὰς).  Harink notes that “[w]e must clarify the meaning of telos (end, goal). . . .”  He suggests, first, that telos

is not in any signifcant sense simply the final point in the cosmic or historical temporal sequence.  It is not the end as midnight is the end of a twenty-four-hour day, nor is it near in the sense that midnight is near to 11:59 PM.  It is not the next or last thing, but the goal of all things, a goal that subsumes the temporal but cannot be summed up by it.

Harink, Commentary, p. 111.  This is the sense telos carries in much of Greek thought, and it also seems consistent with New Testament eschatological usage more broadly, so I’m surprised that David Bentley Hart’s translation also reads “Now the end of all things has drawn near.”  I’m curious why Hart used a phrase that has such a different resonance in popular culture.

Harink further argues that “the telos here is not immanent in or intrinsic to the being of all things, something given a priori and awaiting discovery and realization.  It is not a possession or potential.  It is other; it is fundamentally beyond; it is present in its coming.”  Harink Commentary, p. 111.  I don’t fully agree with Harink here.  As he does consistently throughout this Commentary, Harink radically separates nature and grace, immanence and transcendence, church and world, and so-on.  This is a mistake, because it devalues creation and fails to recognize that creation as given is already a gift of grace that anticipates its eschatological realization.

I agree with Harink that in creation as we now experience it, in the world as we now live in it, the original telos of creation is only restored by Christ.  In that sense, the telos of creation is not latent and waiting to be discovered, but requires the radical event of resurrection and new creation.  Yet even the radical event of resurrection and new creation is not entirely discontinuous with creation as given or with creation as we experience it.  Indeed, what is elided in resurrection and new creation — death, despair, evil — is not a part of creation, not a thing in itself, but is a deprivation of creation’s telos.  As St. Paul said, “we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”  (Romans 8:22).  The new creation being birthed cannot be utterly “other” and “beyond” if it derives from the labor pains of this present creation.

So here’s another DBH translation quirk / difference in my study of 1 Peter. 1 Peter 2:2: ὡς ἀρτιγέννητα βρέφη τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα ἐπιποθήσατε, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ αὐξηθῆτε εἰς σωτηρίαν, (1 Pet. 2:2 GNT)

NIV: Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,

NRS: Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation–

In my study of 1 Peter, using David Bentley Hart’s New Testament as one of my English versions, here’s another interesting translation issue.

1 Peter 1:13: Διὸ ἀναζωσάμενοι τὰς ὀσφύας τῆς διανοίας ὑμῶν νήφοντες τελείως ἐλπίσατε ἐπὶ τὴν φερομένην ὑμῖν χάριν ἐν ἀποκαλύψει Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

NRS: Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed.

NIV: Therefore, with minds that are alert and fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at his coming.

This is part of my series on 1 Peter.  As noted in my introductory post, I’m interested in the epistle’s language.  After the introductory materials in Chapter 1:1-2, the writer offers an encouragement to remain steadfast that is often the subject of sermons.  (As they say, “that’ll preach!”)  Like most such exhortations in the New Testament, the encouragement is based in the eschatological hope that God will vindicate the community of God’s people.   Verse 9 tells the letter’s hearers that they should remain steadfast, “for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (NIV).   The multiple “you’s” here — you are receiving, your faith, the salvation of your souls — appear in the NIV, NASB, and NRSV.

Here is how David Bentley Hart translates verse 9:  “Obtaining the end of your faithfulness:  salvation of souls.”  Notice the shift in emphasis:  the Church’s “faithfulness” — not “your faith” — results in the “salvation of souls” — not “your souls.”

At first blush, I thought this might connect with a missional reading of this text.  In Hart’s more “literal” translation, the emphasis seems to shift from the souls of the particular person or community the writer is addressing to “souls” generally, that is, to the broader human community.  Perhaps there is a notion here that the Church’s prayers and practices spill over to benefit others who are not yet within the Church.  But this instinct shows how tricky it can be to base conclusions on differing translations.  It also shows that Hart’s effort to produce a “literal” translation can’t really result in a “literal” reading.  A “translation,” after all, can’t ever be “literal.”  (I’m not attacking Hart’s work here — I think it’s amazing — but just observing, as I’m sure Hart would agree, that translation always involves interpretation.)

The Greek text here is:

κομιζόμενοι here has the sense of coming into possession of something, often as a reward. [1] The noun τέλος (telos) refers to an end, conclusion, or goal.

πίστεως is the term translated “faith” in the NIV and NRSV and “faithfulness” by Hart.  I think Hart’s translation invokes the debate over the translation of πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ in the Pauline corpus (cf. Rom. 3:22, Gal. 2:16, Gal. 3:22, Phil. 3:9).[2]  My inclination is that “faithfulness” is the better translation, and Achtemeier’s commentary agrees.  Perhaps this is a place where the author of 1 Peter is using a Pauline concept, or, more directly, the notion of “faithfulness” seems closer to the early Jewish-Christian thought world generally.

The term “your” — ὑμῶν — appears only once in this clause.  Hart reads ὑμῶν to modify πίστεως but not σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν.  The word ψυχῶν (from psuché, “soul”) is in the genitive plural, while σωτηρίαν is singular, so that clause literally is “the salvation of souls.”

Hart’s translation therefore seems grammatically correct or at least more “literal” than the other English translations.  The problem is that it is equally grammatically correct in Greek to read ὑμῶν as relating both to πίστεως and to σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν.  In Greek, the tenses of words determine their relation to each other, not word order.  This can be counterintuitive for English speakers, because word order is very important in English.  Of course, Hart knows this, and I’m not suggesting there’s anything untoward in Hart’s translation.  But, as is so often the case, as a translator Hart is not just rendering the text “literally,” but is necessarily making choices between different plausible possibilities.  It’s wise, then, to read any translation with a modestly critical eye.[3]

In his commentary, Achtemeier translates verse 9 “because you are receiving the culmination of your faith that is your salvation.”  Hart’s translation gives some credence to how I’m reading the Greek, but the NSRV, NIV, and Achtemeier all read a “your” in connection with “salvation” or “souls.”  At the same time, Achtemeier’s translation seems to be relatively dynamic:  he does not even render the word ψυχῶν (“souls”) into English because, he suggests in a footnote, the term ψυχῶν refers to the whole person, not to a disembodied “soul.”

How would you choose between these possible alternatives?  I don’t think there’s any great doctrinal weight behind the question in this case, and as a theologian you should never build an entire case on one obscure verse in any event.  But the first step would be to look at the verse or pericope in question in the context of the particular text under study.  The authors of Biblical texts were not writing with “verses” in mind — verse divisions came much later.  1 Peter is a letter, a practical, pastoral exhortation to a particular community or group of communities.  How would one translation or another fit into the overall flow of the letter?  What concerns is the writer addressing, are there any concepts that seem to recur, is there similar language used in other places?  If this particular text is part of a corpus from one writer, how does the language relate to similar concepts and language in other texts by that writer?  These are some basic considerations that show there is always an “art” to translation.

So what do I think about this particular text?  I think the “standard” English translations probably are the better reading over Hart’s, but to some extent I’m going to punt.  The letter is addressed to a particular suffering community or group of communities, so undoubtedly the author wants to encourage these readers about their salvation from this struggle.  Much in 1 Peter is oppositional — a “Christ against culture” stance in relation to the power of Rome — and that is what makes its political theology interesting, as Harink’s commentary notes.  And yet, there is a “cosmic” eschatological framing in the letter.  The author tells the community that they “are being protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (1 Pet. 1:5 NRS).  This  σωτηρίαν (1 Pet. 1:5 GNT) will be ἀποκαλυφθῆναι ἐν καιρῷ ἐσχάτῳ.  The apocalyptic — revealing — awaits the kairoi eschatoi — the eschatological time.  The eschatological time belongs to God and is known only to God.  What the Church knows is that it is protected as it is called to bear witness through patient service, and suffering, to what God has yet to reveal.

—–

[1]

BDAG Note 3 on  κομίζω  reads as follows:

“to come into possession of someth. or experience someth., carry off, get (for oneself), receive freq. as recompense, mid. (Diod. S. 17, 69, 1; 20, 28, 3; Appian, Bell. Civ. 5, 60, §252 γράμματα) τὰ ὀψώνια pay, wages IPol 6:2. μισθόν (Polystrat. p. 22; Lucian, Phal. 2, 5; SIG 193, 9; 11; 1077, 4; 2 Macc 8:33; Ath., R. 18 p. 70, 30 κομίσασθαι τὰ ἐπίχειρα) 2 Cl 11:5; cp. B 4:12, where μισθόν is to be supplied (as En 100:7). μισθὸν ἀδικίας reward for wrongdoing 2 Pt 2:13 v.l. (ἀδικέω 2 end). Of special divine favor in recognition of piety (Diod. S. 3, 2, 4) τῆς δόξης στέφανον 1 Pt 5:4 (cp. Eur., Hipp. 432 codd. κ. δόξαν; 1 Macc 13:37). κ. τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν receive a recompense for what (each one) has done during life in the body 2 Cor 5:10 (cp. the judgment scenes Pla., Phd. 113 and 114; s. also Diod. S. 8, 15); cp. Col 3:25. τοῦτο κομίσεται παρὰ κυρίου Eph 6:8 (PSI 438, 11 [III BC] κεκόμισμαι παρὰ Φανίου ἐπιστολήν). τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν the promise (i.e. what is promised) Hb 10:36; 11:13 v.l., 39. τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν obtain as an outcome of faith the salvation of souls 1 Pt 1:9 (contrast 4:17).—DELG s.v. κομέω. M-M.”

[2]

For a summary of the debate, see Chris Kugler, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: The Current State of Play and the Key Arguments, Currents in Biblical Research 14:2, 244-255 (2016).

[3]

I should note that the precise reasons why both readings are grammatically correct are beyond my very modest Greek skills. I did, however, consult other scholars, including my Greek professor from seminary, who confirmed that either reading could be correct.

I’m starting a new study on 1 Peter.  I’ll be using the Brazos Theological Commentary by Douglas Harink as a guide.  I’ll also consult the Hermmeneia commentary by Paul Achtemeier for scholarly / critical resources.  And, in addition to the NRSV and other typical English translations, I’ll be reading along in David Bentley Hart’s recent New Testament translation.  I’m also reading the Greek text, with plenty of help from Bibleworks (I claim no strength in the Greek).

I’m particularly interested in Harink’s theological reading of 1 Peter as an exercise in political theology.  As I began to dive into this text, I saw in a fresh way how its eschatological vision relates to the formation of a living ecclesial community.  That eschatological vision, however, might not look just as you might think.  In some respects, it seems like a very “Pauline” vision, with Hellenistic overtones.  In other respects, it seems typical of Second Temple Jewish eschatology.

These resonances perhaps should not be surprising given the epistle’s attribution of authorship to the Apostle Peter.  Throughout the New Testament, beginning in the book of Acts, we see tension between the “Petrine” and “Pauline” visions of emerging Christianity.  You could say that the “Petrine” vision is more rooted in the radical Jewish tradition, and indeed, as Achtemeier notes, scholars debate whether 1 Peter reflects familiarity with the Qumran tradition.  Of course, whether the Apostle Peter actually was involved in writing the epistle is hotly debated, and Achtemeier offers a good survey of the arguments.  My sense as a non-specialist in this area is that this admixture of Hellenestic and “Qumranic” eschatological elements suggests at least some connection with an authentically Petrine community, although the Apostle likely did not craft the letter’s text itself given its language and historical setting.  The role of Silvanus (Silas) here is very interesting (see 1 Peter 5:12).  Perhaps Silvanus was a kind of emissary between the Pauline and Petrine communities and wrote 1 Peter based on the Apostle’s general directions or the memory of such directions some time after the Apostle’s death.  Achtemeier also addresses this and seems to think it unlikely, but the idea resonates with me.  In any event, theologically this text is part of the Church’s canon and therefore we address it as an authentically Apostolic word of scripture, whatever the details of its actual authorship.