R
(Robin)
So many versions add a verb to the end of Col 2:17, apparently attempting to equate Christ with something said previously; these same translations always seem to be wrestling with the conjunction "de" or "yet" ... perhaps this is why they add the verb. However after spending some time and effort looking more closely at these two verses, I'm beginning to think that the problem isn't as difficult as some would make it; that is. First of all, it occured to me that we are not, necessarily, locked into having to seeing these as two different verses (which is something that has editorially been imposed). Next, we all know that Paul talks funny, is just a bit wordy, and is forever providing additions details in
parenthetical aside statement ... not that we don't need, or gain from such additional details, but they do, at times, make it a bit difficult to sort his sentences out. And then, there's that problematic conjunction "de," which causes some of us grammar headaches ...
I think I might have a couple ideas that could resolve the questions ... apparently doctrinal questions ...
but first let's look at simply the parsing and declinations of these two verses as a whole (sans the editorially added verse break):
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·
mE oun tis humas krinetO en brOsei E en posei E en merei heortEs E noumEnias E sabbatOn
no[t] {3361 PRT-N} therefore {3767 CONJ} any [one] {5100 X-NSM} to you {1473 P-2AP} be him judging {2919 V-PAM-3S} in {1722 PREP} unto a consuming {1035 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a drinking {4213 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a part {3313 N-DSN} of a festival {1859 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of a new-moon {3561 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of sabbaths/ of weeks {4521 N-GPN}
ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
ha estin skia tOn mellontOn to de sOma tou christou
which [things] {3739 R-NPN} it be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a shadow {4639 N-NSF} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of about-being {3195 V-PAP-GPN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}
You don't have to agree, necessarily, with my actualtranslation of words (we could discuss this later),
but the parsing/declination is accurate ... also, the above reading is based on that found in the "Byzantine Textform 2005," by M. Robinson and W. Pierpont (and yes, there are two variations in verse 16, and another one in verse 17, but neither of these directly relate to the point I'm going to attempt to make about how these verses should be read).
Now then, about Paul's tendency to add the parenthetical aside statements ... we have one of those situations, here, in verse 17 ...
..."(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] YET about-being)" ...
Notice that I've included the conjuction "de" or "yet" within this parenthetical aside, rather than attempting to use is in relationship with the last few words of the verse; that is,
instead making any awkward attempts to apply it to ..."the body of Christ" ...I've simply moved it's application forward in the syntax, so that it is now applicable to the preceading time reference ... "of the things YET about being" ... which is, you must surely admit, a rather logical reading, and place to apply the word.
Now this parenthetical aside, additional information provided us by Paul, is directly applicable to the preceading things mentioned ...
..."in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths" ...
That is, these above mentioned ...things... are a shadow of yet coming ("about-being") ...things... and I put the emphasis upon this, these plural "things," because although they be also noted as being a singular "shadow," they are still a shadow of coming plural "things" ... that is,they are not, here, being talked to as a shadow of the singular Christ, but rather a shadow of future things or events or happenings (all plural things). Admittedly, they do, indeed, have to do with Christ future coming again, but THEy do not specifically
equate to the singular Christ.
Now, I'd like to add my own aside ... notice, here, that my compilation of these Greek words provide a reading of each and every word, something that a number of translations dont do ... specifically, the word "merei," the dative singular neuter noun "unto a part" {Strongs# 3313 N-DSN} ... "in a part of festival or new moon" ...
Why Paul gets this detailed, I'm not exactly sure, but here's my best guess ... that is, these "things" represent or shadow futher aspects of Christ's coming kingdom; however, it's also clear that what some of these past festivals (holy days) represent, have already come to be ... Passover being the most obvious ... the Lamb of God has already been sacrificed. Hence, I'm thinking, that Paul just wanted to be most accurate in his reference to these things; that is, they shadow or are types, but not all of them are coming, becasue the reality of some have already happened.
Now then, the opening statement of verse 16 ..."Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging"
is, I'm thinking, just about as clear as Paul can make it ...DONT ALLOW FOR ANYONE TO BE JUDGING YOU ...
And then, he goes on to specifically talk to some rituals, the observance of, or non-observance of
that we are being warned against our allowing anyone to be judging us by ...
..."Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging ....in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths" ...
If this were all that Paul had said; had he have kept it short, and not added verse 2:17, there surely wouldn't be any subsequent doctrinal arguements ...
(silly Robin, there will always be doctrinal arguments), but you surely must agree that just the above verse 2:17, alone, is a rather plain and clear statement ... right?
So then, back to verse 2:17, most of which is that parenthetical aside ... the problem arises with the last few words, and how they relate back to what's previosly said.
Again, if we deal with the conjunction "de" and simply apply it to where is easy fits, and makes good sense, a good part of the difficulty with these last few words goes away ...
Also, if we dont take it upon ourselves to add verbs to these, God's words ...
for instance ...."the body [IS] Christ" ... or the very worst. most criminally misleading ..."the reality belongs to Chrst" (NWT 2013) ...
That is, if we SIMPLY read the words that Paul and God give to us ... "the body of Christ" ... then you have a unique phrase of Paul's, that he uses throughout his epistles;
a phrase of term that has a very definite meaning, established by a mutitude of differnt context applications; that is, WE believers, are The Body of Christ ... Notice, if you will,
that the following two verses (2:18-19) most clearly are talking to the Body of Christ, and Christ the Head of this Body, and further warns us to avoide being judged or ruled agains by those who would have us being subjected to rituals ... That is, verses 2:16-19 very clearly have the Body of Christ in mind, whereas, such readings as that found in the NWT, which it has NO other scriptural precident; has mistraslated one word and added two others; and only make some modicum of sense if you're already in agreement with their doctrines. Sorry, I digress, but sometimes such blatantly doctrinally driven mistranslations make me itch!
Anyway, moving right along, I'd originally mentioned that the editorially imposed verse division between 2:16 and 2:17 shouldn't really dictate how we read what Paul originally says ...And the reason I'm suggesting this, is that that seemingly random phrase at the end of verse 17, wouldn't be such a "tag-on" statement, if these two verses weren't separated. Again, a good many translation wrestle with this last phrase by adding verbs, and grammatically struggling with the conjunction "de" ("yet"), because they are hesitant to play with the syntax (word order) becasue of this artificial separation. That is, to make some sense of this "tag-on" phrase, they resort ot equating it with the "shadow" ...
they add a verb and end up say something to the effect ... "the body or reality of the shadow is Christ" ...
So then, let's ignore this verse division ... let's also mentally summarize those specific things that we're not be be judged by ... those things he, himself summarily call "rituals" in the following verse 2:19 ... let's also, mentally put aside, just for the moment Paul's aside, which further explains that these rituals are a shadow of things to come ...
And so, what would that leave us ...
"Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging ...in rituals ... the Body of Christ"
or even more succinct
...DON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO JUDGE YOU, THE BODY OF CHRIST ....
So many versions add a verb to the end of Col 2:17, apparently attempting to equate Christ with something said previously; these same translations always seem to be wrestling with the conjunction "de" or "yet" ... perhaps this is why they add the verb. However after spending some time and effort looking more closely at these two verses, I'm beginning to think that the problem isn't as difficult as some would make it; that is. First of all, it occured to me that we are not, necessarily, locked into having to seeing these as two different verses (which is something that has editorially been imposed). Next, we all know that Paul talks funny, is just a bit wordy, and is forever providing additions details in
parenthetical aside statement ... not that we don't need, or gain from such additional details, but they do, at times, make it a bit difficult to sort his sentences out. And then, there's that problematic conjunction "de," which causes some of us grammar headaches ...
I think I might have a couple ideas that could resolve the questions ... apparently doctrinal questions ...
but first let's look at simply the parsing and declinations of these two verses as a whole (sans the editorially added verse break):
Μὴ οὖν τις ὑμᾶς κρινέτω ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει, ἢ ἐν μέρει ἑορτῆς ἢ νουμηνίας ἢ σαββάτων·
mE oun tis humas krinetO en brOsei E en posei E en merei heortEs E noumEnias E sabbatOn
no[t] {3361 PRT-N} therefore {3767 CONJ} any [one] {5100 X-NSM} to you {1473 P-2AP} be him judging {2919 V-PAM-3S} in {1722 PREP} unto a consuming {1035 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a drinking {4213 N-DSF} or {2228 PRT} in {1722 PREP} unto a part {3313 N-DSN} of a festival {1859 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of a new-moon {3561 N-GSF} or {2228 PRT} of sabbaths/ of weeks {4521 N-GPN}
ἅ ἐστιν σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων, τὸ δὲ σῶμα χριστοῦ.
ha estin skia tOn mellontOn to de sOma tou christou
which [things] {3739 R-NPN} it be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a shadow {4639 N-NSF} of the [things] {3588 T-GPN} of about-being {3195 V-PAP-GPN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} yet {1161 CONJ} a body {4983 N-NSN} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}
You don't have to agree, necessarily, with my actualtranslation of words (we could discuss this later),
but the parsing/declination is accurate ... also, the above reading is based on that found in the "Byzantine Textform 2005," by M. Robinson and W. Pierpont (and yes, there are two variations in verse 16, and another one in verse 17, but neither of these directly relate to the point I'm going to attempt to make about how these verses should be read).
Now then, about Paul's tendency to add the parenthetical aside statements ... we have one of those situations, here, in verse 17 ...
..."(which [things] a shadow it be of the [things] YET about-being)" ...
Notice that I've included the conjuction "de" or "yet" within this parenthetical aside, rather than attempting to use is in relationship with the last few words of the verse; that is,
instead making any awkward attempts to apply it to ..."the body of Christ" ...I've simply moved it's application forward in the syntax, so that it is now applicable to the preceading time reference ... "of the things YET about being" ... which is, you must surely admit, a rather logical reading, and place to apply the word.
Now this parenthetical aside, additional information provided us by Paul, is directly applicable to the preceading things mentioned ...
..."in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths" ...
That is, these above mentioned ...things... are a shadow of yet coming ("about-being") ...things... and I put the emphasis upon this, these plural "things," because although they be also noted as being a singular "shadow," they are still a shadow of coming plural "things" ... that is,they are not, here, being talked to as a shadow of the singular Christ, but rather a shadow of future things or events or happenings (all plural things). Admittedly, they do, indeed, have to do with Christ future coming again, but THEy do not specifically
equate to the singular Christ.
Now, I'd like to add my own aside ... notice, here, that my compilation of these Greek words provide a reading of each and every word, something that a number of translations dont do ... specifically, the word "merei," the dative singular neuter noun "unto a part" {Strongs# 3313 N-DSN} ... "in a part of festival or new moon" ...
Why Paul gets this detailed, I'm not exactly sure, but here's my best guess ... that is, these "things" represent or shadow futher aspects of Christ's coming kingdom; however, it's also clear that what some of these past festivals (holy days) represent, have already come to be ... Passover being the most obvious ... the Lamb of God has already been sacrificed. Hence, I'm thinking, that Paul just wanted to be most accurate in his reference to these things; that is, they shadow or are types, but not all of them are coming, becasue the reality of some have already happened.
Now then, the opening statement of verse 16 ..."Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging"
is, I'm thinking, just about as clear as Paul can make it ...DONT ALLOW FOR ANYONE TO BE JUDGING YOU ...
And then, he goes on to specifically talk to some rituals, the observance of, or non-observance of
that we are being warned against our allowing anyone to be judging us by ...
..."Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging ....in a consuming, or in a drinking, or in a part of festival or of new-moon, or of sabbaths" ...
If this were all that Paul had said; had he have kept it short, and not added verse 2:17, there surely wouldn't be any subsequent doctrinal arguements ...
(silly Robin, there will always be doctrinal arguments), but you surely must agree that just the above verse 2:17, alone, is a rather plain and clear statement ... right?
So then, back to verse 2:17, most of which is that parenthetical aside ... the problem arises with the last few words, and how they relate back to what's previosly said.
Again, if we deal with the conjunction "de" and simply apply it to where is easy fits, and makes good sense, a good part of the difficulty with these last few words goes away ...
Also, if we dont take it upon ourselves to add verbs to these, God's words ...
for instance ...."the body [IS] Christ" ... or the very worst. most criminally misleading ..."the reality belongs to Chrst" (NWT 2013) ...
That is, if we SIMPLY read the words that Paul and God give to us ... "the body of Christ" ... then you have a unique phrase of Paul's, that he uses throughout his epistles;
a phrase of term that has a very definite meaning, established by a mutitude of differnt context applications; that is, WE believers, are The Body of Christ ... Notice, if you will,
that the following two verses (2:18-19) most clearly are talking to the Body of Christ, and Christ the Head of this Body, and further warns us to avoide being judged or ruled agains by those who would have us being subjected to rituals ... That is, verses 2:16-19 very clearly have the Body of Christ in mind, whereas, such readings as that found in the NWT, which it has NO other scriptural precident; has mistraslated one word and added two others; and only make some modicum of sense if you're already in agreement with their doctrines. Sorry, I digress, but sometimes such blatantly doctrinally driven mistranslations make me itch!
Anyway, moving right along, I'd originally mentioned that the editorially imposed verse division between 2:16 and 2:17 shouldn't really dictate how we read what Paul originally says ...And the reason I'm suggesting this, is that that seemingly random phrase at the end of verse 17, wouldn't be such a "tag-on" statement, if these two verses weren't separated. Again, a good many translation wrestle with this last phrase by adding verbs, and grammatically struggling with the conjunction "de" ("yet"), because they are hesitant to play with the syntax (word order) becasue of this artificial separation. That is, to make some sense of this "tag-on" phrase, they resort ot equating it with the "shadow" ...
they add a verb and end up say something to the effect ... "the body or reality of the shadow is Christ" ...
So then, let's ignore this verse division ... let's also mentally summarize those specific things that we're not be be judged by ... those things he, himself summarily call "rituals" in the following verse 2:19 ... let's also, mentally put aside, just for the moment Paul's aside, which further explains that these rituals are a shadow of things to come ...
And so, what would that leave us ...
"Therefore, to you no[t] any [one] be him judging ...in rituals ... the Body of Christ"
or even more succinct
...DON'T ALLOW ANYONE TO JUDGE YOU, THE BODY OF CHRIST ....
