I was reading through the first few verses of Titus in Greek today when I noticed this.
Titus 1:2-3a
…ἐλπίδι ζωης αἰωνίου ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροις ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτου ἐν κηρύγματι ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ’ ἐπιταγὴν του σωτηρος ἡμων θεου…
My Translation
…hope of eternal life, which the lie-less God promised from eternity past, but in his own time unveiled in his word in preaching, which I have been entrusted according to the command of our savior, God;
ESV
…hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior;
God brings the revelation of the hope of eternal life through Christ, through the preaching of his word. It is important to note how the ESV makes an interpretive decision when it says “in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted…” In the Greek there is no article before κηρύγματι (preaching), and so this could (and I believe should) be translated “in his word through preaching, which I have been entrusted.”
The difference between these two translations seems small. One translation includes the definite article, the, and the other translation does not. Do you see the significance in such a small, seemingly insignificant, translation decision? By inserting the definite article, this passage only refers to the revelatory nature of Paul’s preaching of the word of God. If we translate it, more naturally, without the definite article, this passage refers to the revelatory nature of preaching the word of God, to which Paul was particularly entrusted. I think the reason why the ESV and many modern translations utilize the definite article is so that they can emphasize that the relative clause is clarifying its antecedent. It is important make note of this, because it is true that a relative clause “describes, clarifies, or restricts the meaning of the noun” (Wallace, 336). So, if we choose not to utilize the definite article because of the way it restricts preaching to the preaching of Paul alone, in our exposition we must take care to emphasize that it is the kind of preaching that Paul preached which is being referred to.
While the ESV is my favorite overall translation I prefer the KJV rendering of this passage, which leaves the definite article out:
…eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Savior;
The 2mites.com Easter Giveaway is less than 2 weeks away, so be sure to enter!
jeff,
i defer to your greek, but isn’t it true that it’s [gramatically] correct both ways? if so, then we know for sure that Paul meant [at least] the preaching particular to himself, but we can’t know for sure he intended the broader meaning of all preaching from this sentence alone. follow? so why lean to the broader interpretation of what God “says” here concerning preaching, when we can’t know for sure? if what i just said about it being correct both ways, it would seem like a prudent to step to be overly cautious before stretching Scripture to cover ideas Paul never meant, you think?
trev
Hey Jeff –
Thanks for your post. One additional possibility it might be worthwhile to consider -
Maybe the ESV included the definite article to clarify that “preaching” is a noun here and not a verb. It would be hard to draw this out in a translation (I don’t think it’s super clear the way they did it either).
I think the emphasis I’d put on it would be upon the content of the preaching (the preached message) rather than the specific act of preaching. If Paul wanted to emphasize the latter, he could have used the participle form of “to preach” rather than the noun.
What do you think?
mxu
Trev,
You are right. Because “preaching” (κηρύγματι) is the object of the preposition “in” (ἐν), it does not require the inclusion of the article to be definite. However, there are many places throughout the NT that the biblical authors emphasize that the subject of a preposition is to be understood as definite, so they include the article. Paul chose not to include the article here, so I think it is safe to say that he isn’t going out of his way to emphasize that it is is his preaching, but rather he puts the focus on the mechanism of preaching itself.
Whether this revelatory mechanism he is writing about here is restricted to his ministry, or whether he is only referring to this revelatory mechanism in relation to his ministry (as I have suggested), seems somewhat speculative either way. I can’t help but wonder because of Paul’s emphasis in Titus (and the other pastoral epistles) on the importance of the speech and teaching of an elder, if Paul is purposefully drawing attention to the revelatory nature of the proclamational speech act itself (in reference to the word of God), right at the beginning of this epistle. But ultimately, you are right in that I can’t be 100% certain (but I’m about 65%).
I do think it would be better to leave the definite article out in translation, because then it leaves the interpretive ambiguity in the Greek text. In English you could still understand this sentence as only referring to Paul’s preaching, even with the absence of the definite article, because it is immediately followed by the relative pronoun. This is especially true if the comma after preaching were to be seen as an “educated guess”. Many people reading their bibles know that the punctuation is not generally included in the Greek, but they won’t go to the Greek to see if the article is present or not. Then, people could decide for themselves via theological and literary context. If you insert the English definite article, the only way this sentence can be understood is in reference to Paul’s preaching alone, and the option to see preaching as a revelatory mechanism especially related to the ministry of Paul is overlooked.
Jeff, I prefer to think of it as more the office of preaching, which Paul has been entrusted to. But this doesn’t mean that no one else has been entrusted to this office either. You have been entrusted to the office of preaching just as much as Pastor John and 1,000s of others. If you preach the true gospel (the same one Paul preached), then you are preaching the hope of eternal life by the revelation of God.
Also don’t forget to translate ἐπιταγὴν. “according to the command/order of God our Savior.”
Here’s my translation: Titus 1:1-3 — “Paul, a servant of God, and apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of the chosen ones of God and the knowledge of the truth – that which [is] according to godliness/piety – on the hope of eternal life, which (that is, eternal life) the lie-less God promised before time eternal, and revealed in (using the dative helping word) his own time his word in preaching, which (meaning: the call to preach) I was entrusted according to the order of God, our Savior.”
I don’t think Paul thinks he will be the only one entrusted to preach the gospel of eternal life in Jesus Christ. And the definite article before “preaching” doesn’t seem to affect me the same way it does for you. In Greek, even if there’s no definite article it doesn’t mean it can’t be translated in English without one. This is because there is NO indefinite article in Greek, therefore an anarthrous noun can be EITHER indefinite OR definite; the author simply didn’t choose to make it clear whether it HAD to be definite or not.
Good thought Mickey.
Actually, I think Paul’s use of the noun further proves my point. Let me explain.
First, there are only 4 instances in the NT when any anarthrous participle immediate follows a preposition; only once in Pauline literature, never with the preposition ἐν, and it seems to be an anomaly of sort. (I’d like to do some follow up work on this in contemporary Greek sources if I go to Luther Sem Library today). So, if Paul wanted to leave the article out, he would probably most naturally use a noun rather than a participle.
There is no question in my mind that the kind of preaching being referred to here is gospel proclamation. However, is the focus in this sentence on the message (as you suggest), on the mechanism, or kinda both. I lean towards kinda both – gospel preaching. If Paul wanted to focus on the message, he was more than familiar with the word “gospel”. But he used “preaching”. Also, just because he didn’t use a participle, doesn’t mean the noun κηρύγματι doesn’t have a strong verbal idea. I think it does.