εἰς τὸ μὴ ταχέως σαλευθῆναι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ νοὸς μηδὲ θροεῖσθαι, μήτε διὰ πνεύματος μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου·
2not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.
The Greek that is typically translated as “mind” in English is translated in Warao as obojona, a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. )
In Elhomwe it is often translated as “heart,” “because all thoughts come from heart in Elhomwe thought.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.
The Hebrew and Greek that is translated in many English versions as “Day of the Lord” was rendered in Bengali as “Day of Judgement” in order to avoid confusion with the Lord’s day in the sense of Sunday.
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “alarmed,” “shaken,” “panicked,” “confounded,” “confused” or similar in English is translated in the Catholic Mandarin Chinese Sigao version with historical Chinese idioms: jīnghuāng shīcuò (驚慌失措 / 惊慌失措) and jīnghuáng shīcuò (驚惶失措 / 惊惶失措): “panicked and at a loss.” (Source: Toshikazu S. Foley in Hong Kong Journal of Catholic Studies, 2011, p. 45ff.)
The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).
For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the addressee).
Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.
In Fijian, the paucal exclusive forms neitou and keitou (“of me and a few [two or slight more]”) are used instead. This choice is understandable in view of the introduction found in both letters to the Thessalonians, where the writer Paul indicates clearly that the letters were co-authored by two other colleagues, Silas and Timothy, hence the use of a pronoun referring to three people (“Paul, Silas and Timothy”).
Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 419ff.
Following are a number of back-translations of 2 Thessalonians 2:2:
The Hebrew adonai in the Old Testament typically refers to God. The shorter adon (and in two cases in the book of Daniel the Aramaic mare [מָרֵא]) is also used to refer to God but more often for concepts like “master,” “owner,” etc. In English Bible translations all of those are translated with “Lord” if they refer to God.
In English Old Testament translations, as in Old Testament translations in many other languages, the use of Lord (or an equivalent term in other languages) is not to be confused with Lord (or the equivalent term with a different typographical display for other languages). While the former translates adonai, adon and mare, the latter is a translation for the tetragrammaton (YHWH) or the Name of God. See tetragrammaton (YHWH) and the article by Andy Warren-Rothlin in Noss / Houser, p. 618ff. for more information.
In the New Testament, the Greek term kurios has at least four different kinds of use:
In the first and fourth case, it is also translated as “Lord” in English.
Most languages naturally don’t have one word that covers all these meanings. According to Bratcher / Nida, “the alternatives are usually (1) a term which is an honorific title of respect for a high-ranking person and (2) a word meaning ‘boss’, ‘master’, or ‘chief.’ (…) and on the whole it has generally seemed better to employ a word of the second category, in order to emphasize the immediate personal relationship, and then by context to build into the word the prestigeful character, since its very association with Jesus Christ will tend to accomplish this purpose.”
When looking at the following list of back-translations of the terms that translators in the different languages have used for both kurios and adonai to refer to God and Jesus respectively, it might be helpful for English readers to recall the etymology of the English “Lord.” While this term might have gained an exalted meaning in the understanding of many, it actually comes from hlaford or “loaf-ward,” referring to the lord of the castle who was the keeper of the bread (source: Rosin 1956, p. 121).
Following are some of the solutions that don’t rely on a different typographical display (see above):
We have come to rely on another term which emphasizes God’s essential nature as YHWH, namely jukurrarnu (see tetragrammaton (YHWH)). This word is built on the same root jukurr– as is jukurrpa, ‘dreaming.’ Its basic meaning is ‘timelessness’ and it is used to describe physical features of the land which are viewed as always being there. Some speakers view jukurrarnu in terms of ‘history.’ In all Genesis references to YHWH we have used Kaatu Jukurrarnu. In all Mark passages where kurios refers to God and not specifically to Christ we have also used Kaatu Jukurrarnu.
New Testament references to Christ as kurios are handled differently. At one stage we experimented with the term Watirirririrri which refers to a ceremonial boss of highest rank who has the authority to instigate ceremonies. While adequately conveying the sense of Christ’s authority, there remained potential negative connotations relating to Warlpiri ceremonial life of which we might be unaware.
Here it is that the Holy Spirit led us to make a chance discovery. Transcribing the personal testimony of the local Warlpiri pastor, I noticed that he described how ‘my Warlaljamarri called and embraced me (to the faith)’. Warlaljamarri is based on the root warlalja which means variously ‘family, possessions, belongingness’. A warlaljamarri is the ‘owner’ or ‘possessor’ of something. While previously being aware of the ‘ownership’ aspect of warlaljamarri, this was the first time I had heard it applied spontaneously and naturally in a fashion which did justice to the entire concept of ‘Lordship’. Thus references to Christ as kurios are now being handled by Warlaljamarri.” (Source: Stephen Swartz, The Bible Translator 1985, p. 415ff. )
Law (2013, p. 97) writes about how the Ancient Greek Septuagint‘s translation of the Hebrew adonai was used by the New Testament writers as a bridge between the Old and New Testaments: “Another case is the use of kurios referring to Jesus. For Yahweh (in English Bibles: ‘the Lord‘), the Septuagint uses kurios. Although the term kurios usually has to do with one’s authority over others, when the New Testament authors use this word from the Septuagint to refer to Jesus, they are making an extraordinary claim: Jesus of Nazareth is to be identified with Yahweh.”
See also Father / Lord.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -naide (ないで) or “do not (for their sake)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”
(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
Paul states the reason for his concern about the Christians at Thessalonica. They are in danger of believing, on insufficient grounds, that “the Day of the Lord” had already come. This leads Paul to explain in some detail what he believes that Day will be and to speak of the events which must first take place—events so public and dramatic that everyone will know they have occurred.
The exact meaning of this verse can best be reached by looking at its wider context and at the general situation of the Thessalonians. Like most Christians in the generation following the death of Jesus, they are living in a state of high expectation that Jesus would soon return and the final judgment would take place. Paul shares these beliefs. His only concern is that the Thessalonians do not become so excited that they accept without question anything they might hear or read on this subject.
In this setting, it is possible to define more closely the meaning of the expressions translated be … confused in your thinking and upset. Out of context, the most common meaning of be confused in your thinking in English would be “not to reason correctly,” but this is not the main element in the meaning of the Greek. Upset suggests sadness and often annoyance, but again this is not the meaning of the original.
Be confused in your thinking is literally “be shaken from (your) mind,” (cf. King James Version‘s and Revised Standard Version‘s unidiomatic “shaken in mind”). Biblical thought never separates the mind from the rest of human nature, but for Paul the word translated “mind” or thinking normally means “man using his powers of judgment,” and this meaning fits the context well. The state of mind from which Paul wants to save his readers is not simply one of terror (cf. Knox “do not be terrified out of your senses”) nor insanity (cf. Translator’s New Testament “shaken out of your senses”), but neither is it merely logical confusion, as Good News Translation might suggest, still less a change in one’s way of thinking, as in Biblia Dios Habla Hoy. La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée “shaken in your good sense” and Barclay “thrown off your balance” are closer. Note that most translators either remove or replace the metaphor of shaking. New English Bible (cf. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) has “lose your heads.” Most languages are rich in metaphors suggesting various degrees of mental disturbance.
The passive expression not to be so easily confused combined with an implication of means (by the claim that) is the basis for some rather extensive changes in some languages involving the introduction of a reference to human agencies, for example, “do not let those who claim that the Day of the Lord has already come easily confuse you in your thinking.” This type of construction may, however, involve a number of syntactic complications, and therefore it may be necessary to employ a further restructuring, for example, “Some people say that the Day of the Lord has already come; but I beg you, brothers, not to let such people confuse you in your thinking or upset your thoughts.”
Upset is a rare and strong word. It is used in a similar context in Matthew 24.6 and Mark 13.7, where Good News Translation translates “troubles.” Here the stress falls, no longer on the Thessalonians’ judgment, but on their emotions. The context does not explicitly refer to fear, and Barclay‘s “not to get into a state of panic” is too strong and possibly misleading, though fear is certainly involved in the Gospel verses just referred to. An equivalent of upset is in many languages “to twist” or “cause to turn,” for example, “do not let them twist your thoughts,” or “do not let them turn your thoughts around.” This seems to be a far more common expression than the idea of upsetting or turning something upside down. One can in some languages employ “do not let them trouble you in your thoughts,” or even “do not let them cause you to worry about whether your thoughts are right.”
Commentators correctly point out that the word translated easily (literally “quickly”) does not always refer to time. Paul almost certainly does not mean either “so quickly after my last visit” or “so quickly after my last letter.” However, in this context the meaning may still include a time element (cf. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). A possible paraphrase would be “as soon as you hear or read some report that the Day of the Lord has come, don’t immediately accept it without question, or let it disturb you emotionally.” Although the disturbance of judgment is mentioned before the emotional disturbance, the first is probably the result of the second, and it may therefore be preferable in some languages to reverse the order in translation.
So easily is simply “easily” in the original. The addition of so suggests (1) that the Thessalonians have already been led astray and (2) that Paul is blaming them. The first suggestion may be correct; otherwise, why should Paul discuss the subject in such detail? It is possible that the neglect of work mentioned in chapter 3 was linked with a belief that the Day of the Lord had already come. However, Paul may have found it more tactful to speak of a real situation as if it were only a possible danger. For this reason, too, it may be better to avoid the suggestion that Paul is blaming his readers, though some scholars detect a note of impatience in verse 5. Later in this letter Paul makes a clear distinction between the Christian community as a whole, which needs teaching and practical advice (3.6, 13), and certain members of the community, who, though still to be treated as brothers, are directly condemned (3.11-12, 14-15).
On the Day of the Lord, see notes on 1 Thess. 5.2. There is no textual basis for King James Version‘s “day of Christ,” though no doubt for Paul the Old Testament “Day of the Lord” had become also the day of Christ, and “the Lord” in Paul’s writings normally means “Christ.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “the day on which the Lord comes,” clearly referring to Christ. Translator’s New Testament and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible add a note to explain “day of the Lord.”
In place of has come, a few translators (Knox, following the Latin, cf. King James Version) have “is close at hand.” The Greek verb can have this meaning in other tenses and in other contexts. In past tenses, however, it means “has arrived,” and in Romans 8.38 and 1 Corinthians 3.22 the same verb is contrasted with events still to come. Rigaux (p. 653) describes the translation “is imminent” as “a commentary,” having no linguistic basis.
The rest of verse 2 mentions the possible causes of the Thessalonians’ disturbance. Most commentators agree that there are three of these: (1) a “spirit,” (2) a “word,” and (3) a “letter.” (2) and (3) are occasionally taken together, to make a twofold contrast between a spoken utterance and a written message contained in a letter. This is unlikely, mainly because the Greek sentence contains three parallel expressions, and also because the term translated “word” often refers to a spoken message, as in 1 Thess. 1.6 (cf. Acts 20.38).
On the other hand, there seems rather to be a contrast of meaning between spoken messages (1) and (2) above and the written message (3). This is emphasized by Good News Translation and Bible en français courant. The two spoken messages, on this interpretation, would therefore be (1) the kind of ecstatic prophecy described in 1 Corinthians 14 (though this is nowhere else described as “a spirit” without qualification), and (2) a nonecstatic message of preaching or teaching. In the New Testament, neither ecstatic prophecy nor teaching is always accepted as coming from God (see 1 John 4.1). The translation of “spirit” as “prediction” (Knox, Phillips) is too narrow; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible has “prophetic revelation.” Bible de Jérusalem, which had “prophetic words” in its first edition, widens this to “manifestations of the Spirit” in the second.
Most translations take perhaps it is thought … that we wrote it in a letter to mean that a forged letter, falsely claiming Paul as its author, was circulating, and that this letter contained the statement that the Day of the Lord had come. It is true that verse 3 refers to a deliberate attempt to deceive the Thessalonians. However, the Greek (literally “by a letter as by us”) can also imply that a genuine letter by Paul (presumably 1 Thessalonians) had been misunderstood to mean that the Day of the Lord had come. (There was probably not much time, either since the writing of 1 Thessalonians or even since Paul’s visit, for a forgery to be written and circulated and to come to Paul’s knowledge.) Paul may not even be referring to any letter actually in existence, but be putting his readers on their guard against the danger of being influenced by such a letter (cf. Moffatt Knox Phillips “any … letter,” Barclay “some letter”). Good News Translation is right to leave these various possibilities open.
It is not certain whether Paul means that:
1. the “letter,”
2. the “word,” and the “letter,”
3. the “spirit,” the “word,” and the “letter”
were supposed to be “from us” (Revised Standard Version). Most translations from King James Version to Translator’s New Testament choose the first possibility, and this is the simplest solution. Phillips and probably Bible de Jérusalem agree with Good News Translation in choosing the third, while Knox, Barclay, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch Zürcher Bibel choose the second. The main argument for this compromise solution is the difficulty of deciding what could be meant by a prophetic utterance wrongly supposed to come from Paul and his companions. The devices used by translators to show which of these three possibilities they have chosen are varied and interesting. They include:
1. In languages where it is possible, a singular (Bijbel in Gewone Taal Biblia Dios Habla Hoy Luther 1984 La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale) or plural (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch Bible de Jérusalem) verb equivalent to “come (from us).”
2. Repetition or nonrepetition of such words as “some” and “any” (Jerusalem Bible “any prediction or rumour or any letter,” contrast Knox “any spiritual utterance, any message or letter”), cf. New English Bible Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch.
3. Restructuring, as in Good News Translation, Bible en français courant Zürcher Bibel (whose use of square brackets is however not to be recommended): “… neither through a [prophetic] spirit nor through a supposedly-from-us-coming word or [such] a letter.”
4. Punctuation (e.g. King James Version “neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us,” cf. Barclay “some message…, or some statement or some letter”).
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.