[B-Greek] TELEW in 2 Cor 12:9

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 31 07:50:58 EST 2005


At 11:58 PM -0800 1/30/05, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>--- "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
>wrote:
>
>> At 10:00 AM -0800 1/28/05, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>> >--- Iver Larsen <ialarsen at multitechweb.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >     I heard a presentation last night that
>> argued
>> >> that
>> >> > TELEITAI in 2 Cor 12:9 should be rendered with
>> the
>> >> > standard meaning of TELEIN:  to end, finish,
>> >> rather
>> >> > than the sense of "make perfect" or "mature"
>> which
>> >> is
>> >> > not the way the NT generally uses this verb.
>> This
>> >> > would then mean that Paul's power was ended by
>> his
>> >> > weakness, and therefore he depends upon
>> Christ's
>> >> > power, which is explicitly stated in 2 Cor
>> 12:9b.
>> >> > That makes sense of the context (whereas the
>> other
>> >> > meaning for TELEIN does not) and gives TELEW
>> its
>> >> more
>> >> > natural, common meaning.  Yet, translations
>> >> virtually
>> >> > all take the rare meaning needlessly.  This
>> seems
>> >> > compelling to me. Any comments?
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Kenneth,
>> >>
>> >> hH GAR DUNAMIS [MOU] EN ASQENEIAi TELEITAI
>> >>
>> >> TELEW is a difficult word to render in English.
>> It
>> >> is not so much "end,
>> >> finish" in the sense of put a stop to something.
>> It
>> >> is rather "bring to
>> >> completion, reach a goal".
>> >>
>> >> You seem to suggest that the DUNAMIS referred to
>> is
>> >> Paul's power, but the
>> >> common interpretation is to take it to refer to
>> >> Christ's power as in the
>> >> next sentence.
>> >
>> >Iver, I'm suggesting that rendering TELEIN as "make
>> >perfect" is an unusual meaning for TELEIN, and that
>> >12:9 can readily be understood as contrasting
>> Paul's
>> >power (I was not aware of the presence of MOU in
>> some
>> >MSS) that ends in his weakness (he's weak and
>> cannot
>> >change it, thus indicating that his power is
>> virtually
>> >gone) with Christ's power. I realize the common
>> >interpretation is otherwise, but it may well be,
>> now
>> >that I've had this pointed out to me, that the
>> common
>> >interpretation is wrong.  (A parallel instance
>> might
>> >be the many translations that perform eisegesis at
>> 1
>> >Cor 11:10 in taking EXOUSIAN as "veil" or some
>> other
>> >"sign of authority," a sense I am 110% positive no
>> >Greek speaker would have ever granted to
>> EXOUSIAN--so
>> >much for the common interpretation.)  If Paul had
>> >wanted to say Christ's power was made perfect in
>> >Paul's weakness, he could have easily used TELEIAW,
>> >though his only use of this word, in Philippians 3,
>> is
>> >negative.
>>
>> There is no verb TELEIAW, and if you mean TELEIOW,
>> that's the denominative
>> (causative) from the adjective TELEIOS, meaning
>> "cause to be TELEIOS."
>> Moreover, if you'll look carefully at BDAG s.v.
>> TELEW, ß1 "to complete an
>> activity or process, bring to an end, finish,
>> complete"--the sense is
>> "consummate", "complete," "satisfy fully," NOT
>> "close out."
>>
>
>Carl, okay, a small mistake:  TELEIOW, a verb Paul
>only uses once, in a negative sense.

I'm not quite sure what this limitation, if that's what it is, means.
Perhaps the one instance of TETELEIWMAI in Phil 3:12 is Paul's only extant
usage of the verb, but it appears a total of 23x in the GNT; the difference
between TELEIOW and TELEW is pretty much the difference between the two
English verbal formulations, "to make complete" and "to complete."

>As for TELEW, what I notice when I look at BDAG
>(which, IMHO is always trumped by Louw-Nida), listing

I'll respect your HO, Ken, but I'm not obliged to agree with it. I'm glad
to have both tools for Greek lexicography.

>1 gives
>"to complete an activity or process, bring to an end,
>finish, complete."  Examples are provided, usch as
>Luke 2:39.  Here, it clearly means that Joseph and Mry
>finished, as in carried out and were done with
>something.

Lk 2:39 KAI hWS ETELESAN PANTA TA KATA TON NOMON KURIOU, EPESTREYAN EIS THN
GALILAIAN EIS POLIN hEAUTWN NAZAREQ.

Maybe there's some sort of semantic quibble here, Ken. But if you want to
use the word "finish" in Englishing this text, I'd certainly want to
understand that in the sense of "complete"--do the whole task, not simply
scratch it off of a "To Do" list. I think rather that the sense of ETELESAN
PANTA TA KATA TON NOMON KURIOU here is pretty close to that of the phrase
used by Jesus in Mt 3:15 as his reason for being baptized by John: hOUTWS
GAR PREPON ESTIN hHMIN PLHRWSAI PASAN DIKAIOSUNHN.

Matt 13:53 means that Jesus finished
>(which means what, besides that he stopped, i.e., did
>not tell, any more) parables.  It is used of timer
>periods to say taht they are done.  If the issue is
>over whether TELEW means "stop" as in come to a sudden
>halt (like the light turned red), I didn't make that
>argument.

Well, let's be more precise about the sense of ETELESEN here; the text:

Mt 13:53 KAI EGENETO hOTE ETELESEN hO IHSOUS TAS PARABOLAS TAUTAS, METHREN
EKEIQEN.

And here I'd want to understand the sense "completed" rather than "stopped
telling"--for which, if you want to bandy about alternative more precise
expressions, Mt might have used EPAUSATO with a participle like LALWN. And
I'd note too that this (EGENETO hOTE ETELESEN ...) is a formula employed by
the evangelist Matthew to conclude the major discourses which appear to be
intended by the evangelist as more or less complete compendia of teaching
of Jesus on particular matters such as morality, nature of the Kingdom,
church discipline, eschatology, etc. It's not a matter of random items on a
tape such as one might start and stop and particular points, but more a
matter of getting said all that needs to be said.

  I further note that when BDAG is discussing
>2 Cor 12:9, they give essentially a novel meaning to
>TELEW, "power finds its consummation or reaches
>perfection...."  It is not evident from any examples
>givne up to that point why this unqiue translation is
>offered, and whenever a lexicon offers a truly unqiue,
>unjustified translatin like that, it shold raise red
>flags.  (In response to Steve, I never said that TELEW
>had no other sense.)
>
>     Paul says that (some unsated person's) power is
>brought to an end, completed, finished (not
>perfected--that's not part of TELEW's semantic domain
>that I can see) and therefore, Paul relies upon
>CHrist's power.  If Christ's power is completed in
>weakness, how could Paul rely upon it?  Christ's power
>is carried out?  What might that mean?  Christ's pwoer
>is finished in weakness. What might that mean?  I'm
>suggesting that the meaning of TELEW, and the
>following OUN clause suggests, as I heard explained,
>that TELEW would not refer to Christ's power (which is
>not finished or carried out or completed or brought to
>an end in suffering) but Paul's power comes to an end,
>and therefore, he relies upon Christ's power.
>Otherwise, the OUN afrer TELEW makes no sense.  Well,
>you obvioulsy don[t find htis compelling, but when I
>see that a word is regularly translated in a sense
>that I do not see justified from its use elsewhere
>(like EXOUSIAN in 1 Cor 11:10) I get suspicious, and I
>tink this passage fitsthat category. "make perfect" is
>a gloss in BDAG, for which they do not cite any other
>text where that's the required sense.

Look at it again:

2 Cor 12:9 KAI EIRHKEN MOI: ARKEI SOI hH CARIS MOU, hH GAR DUNAMIS EN
ASQENEIAi TELEITAI.

If I understand you, Ken, you want this to mean something like, "And he
said to me, 'My grace is far-reaching enough for you, for power loses its
efficacy in weakness.'" Or even, "And he said to me, 'My grace is
far-reaching enough for you, for your strength is 'out of gas' when you're
weak."

I might accept that this is a plausible thing for Christ to tell Paul:
"You've got to know when your resources of power are exhausted and you've
got to rely upon my grace alone." But I really think (as apparently many
others do also) that you're giving a sense to TELEITAI that doesn't belong
to it; again, although I rather doubt this is a legitimate game to play, I
think the sense you are reading would be more obvious if the text were hH
GAR DUNAMIS (SOU) EN ASQENEIAi SOU PAUETAI (or PEPAUTAI): "Your strength
comes to (has come to) a halt."

I'll have to say that, for my part, I think there's powerful rhetoric in
play here in that last clause, comparable to the rhetorical contortions
over SOFIA and MWRIA in 1 Cor 1-3. Consider, for instance,

1 Cor 1:18 hO LOGOS GAR TOU STAUROU TOIS MEN APOLLUMENOIS MWRIA ESTIN, TOIS
DE SWiZOMENOIS hHMIN DUNAMIS QEOU ESTIN.

And the last part of the above argument:

>that TELEW would not refer to Christ's power (which is
>not finished or carried out or completed or brought to
>an end in suffering) but Paul's power comes to an end,
>and therefore, he relies upon Christ's power.
>Otherwise, the OUN afrer TELEW makes no sense.  Well,
>you obvioulsy don[t find htis compelling, but when I
>see that a word is regularly translated in a sense
>that I do not see justified from its use elsewhere
>(like EXOUSIAN in 1 Cor 11:10) I get suspicious, and I
>tink this passage fitsthat category. "make perfect" is
>a gloss in BDAG, for which they do not cite any other
>text where that's the required sense.

The text wherein that OUN appears resumes Paul's own assertion; what
preceded was what he was told by Christ; now he speaks in his own right:

hHDISTA OUN MALLON KAUCHSOMAI EN TAIS ASQENEIAIS MOU, hINA EPISKHNWSHi EP'
EME hH DUNAMIS TOU CRISTOU.

I'd take the OUN as indicating that in this present statement Paul is
stating what the dictum of Christ means for his behavior hereafter: "And
for that reason I'll brag with all the greater pleasure in my times of
helplessness, so that Christ's power may take up residence in me." I think
that the DUNAMIS in the preceding clause is also Christ's DUNAMIS, and I
think that TELEITAI in the preceding clause has what is by no means an
unusual sense, particularly in a rhetorical climax: "Power is consummated
in weakness." I think it's interesting to that there are no genitive
pronouns qualifying DUNAMIS and ASQENEIAi: the clause, hH GAR DUNAMIS EN
ASQENEIAi TELEITAI, could just as well be referring to the crucifixion as
God's consummate exercise of DUNAMIS, and would express the same paradox as
Paul's discovery that he can live with his "thorn in the flesh" because of
a power that is greater than his own weakness and that even finds its
fullest opportunity in Paul's weakness.

Like yourself, I find it hard to believe that we're going to alter each
other's thinking on the meaning of TELEW in 2 Cor 12:9, but I hope that
we've set forth as fully as possible our reasons for holding these opposed
views.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list