What type rendering does the KJV have at 1 Timothy 3:10, 13?

[Logos1560]

At 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, does the 1611 KJV have a formal-equivalent or dynamic-equivalent rendering for a Greek verb?

For the Greek verb used at 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to “use the office of a deacon.”

The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in these two verses as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times).

Concerning 1 Timothy 3:10, George Bush claimed: “In this instance ‘the office of a deacon’ is wholly imaginary; in the original it is, let them serve, or be in service” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 70). George Bush contended that “the two pompous nouns substantive, ‘the office of a deacon’ when examined by the original, turn out to be phantoms of the translators, introduced into the text to take the place of a verb expressing quite another thought” (Ibid.). George Bush also maintained that this rendering “is plainly a coinage of the translators” (p. 73).

 

[Martin Marprelate]

At 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, does the 1611 KJV have a formal-equivalent or dynamic-equivalent rendering for a Greek verb?

Neither of those IMO; I would say it is probably an archaic term, which is probably as good a reason as any not to use the KJV. Most modern translations have 'serve as deacons' although just 'serve' is sufficient. Is George Bush (senior or junior? ) trying to suggest that the office of a deacon does not exist at all?

 

[TCassidy]

Neither of those IMO; I would say it is probably an archaic term, which is probably as good a reason as any not to use the KJV. Most modern translations have 'serve as deacons' although just 'serve' is sufficient. Is George Bush (senior or junior? ) trying to suggest that the office of a deacon does not exist at all?

I, for the most part, tend to agree. The word in verse 10 is διακονειτωσαν, a present tense, active voice, imperative verb of a word that meant "attendant" in the sense of "to serve (active voice) as an attendant - to attend to the needs of others." Referring, of course, to the office of deacon.

In verse 13 the word is διακονησαντες, an aorist, active,
participle. The most literal, but awkward, meaning would be "deaconizing well" but would read better as those who "have served well" with the understanding that the context is the office of deacon.

So, remembering that Greek is a language using reflexive logic, we have a verb being used as if it were a noun in adjectival substitution in order to give a better understanding in English (a language using inflected logic).

This is, in my opinion, a case of an archaic word in one language being translated into an archaic phrase in the receptor language.

In my opinion, again, none of the various translations can be said to be in error as they all convey the same idea. Those who serve well (verb: "deaconize" well) in the office of servant (noun: deacon) will receive a reward.

Maybe, just maybe, if we all concentrated more on being faithful servants and less on tearing down English translations, we might find some common ground.

 

[Covenanter]

"Use the office of deacon" is the translation of the single verb diakoneo G1247
The KJV translates Strong's G1247 in the following manner: minister unto (15x), serve (10x), minister (7x), miscellaneous (5x).
being the work carried out by a diakonos G1249
The KJV translates Strong's G1249 in the following manner: minister (20x), servant (8x), deacon (3x).

Strong G1248 diakonia is a related noun
The KJV translates Strong's G1248 in the following manner: ministry (16x), ministration (6x), ministering (3x), miscellaneous (9x).

Were these offices precisely defined in Scripture, or have they been developed according to church practice & tradition?

Traditionally the church officers were bishops, priests & deacons, priest being a contraction of presbyter/elder which implies to us a sacrificing Old Covenant type ministry. RC priests live in presbyteries.

Also traditionally, deacons are trainee priests. According wiki -

A deacon is a member of the diaconate, an office in Christian churches that is generally associated with service of some kind, but which varies among theological and denominational traditions.​

The KJV was translated under the orders of King James, who insisted on the translation "bishop" for episcopos. They would have understood the three-fold ministry.

 

[Logos1560]

Also traditionally, deacons are trainee priests. According wiki -

A deacon is a member of the diaconate, an office in Christian churches that is generally associated with service of some kind, but which varies among theological and denominational traditions.​

The KJV was translated under the orders of King James, who insisted on the translation "bishop" for episcopos. They would have understood the three-fold ministry.

James Lillie maintained that “the Anglican deacon is not a scriptural deacon, but is the lowest grade of the hierarchy, while the apostolic deacon was a waiter or servant, as the very word signifies, but, being transferred, not translated, the meaning is covered up as in bishop” (Bishops, p. 179).

Silas E. Shephard asserted: “We say that ‘deacon’ in the time of King James signified one of the inferior clergy, and for that reason is a false and sectarian translation” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, 1855, p. 77; The Reviser, 1855, p. 62).

The content headings for Acts 8 in the 1611 edition [“the Church being placed in Samaria, by Philip the Deacon who preached, did miracles, and baptized many”] would be in line with the position of the deacon in the episcopal hierarchy.

John R. Beard maintained that the makers of the KJV “retain this ecclesiastical term [deacon] only in the places where its retention may serve to support their own ecclesiastical system, by which the Christian ministry is made to consist of three orders, namely, bishop, priest, and deacon” (A Revised English Bible, p. 106). John G. Lorimer asserted that “the Church of Rome and the Church of England have considered the deaconship as an order—the first and the lowest in the priesthood” (The Deaconship, p. 11). It has sometimes been suggested that the deacon in the Church of England is half-priest and half-layman.

John Beard observed: “When Timothy himself is in the Greek called a deacon, then ‘deacon’ is rejected, and the translation ‘minister’ is preferred” (A Revised English Bible, p. 107). Did the KJV translators avoid translating the same Greek word that they had translated deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:12 as deacon when used of Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:6 in order to keep from calling into question his claimed prelatic office of bishop according to the postscript at the end of 2 Timothy in the 1611 edition of the KJV? Would referring to Timothy as a deacon have been a serious problem for Episcopal hierarchial church government views and for the Church of England’s view of deacons?

 

[John of Japan]

At 1 Timothy 3:10, 13, does the 1611 KJV have a formal-equivalent or dynamic-equivalent rendering for a Greek verb?

For the Greek verb used at 1 Timothy 3:10, the pre-1611 English Bibles, including the 1538 Coverdale’s New Testament and 1582 Rheims New Testament from the Latin, have the rendering “minister,” which the makers of the KJV altered and expanded to “use the office of a deacon.”

The KJV itself usually translated the same Greek verb diakoneo used in these two verses as “minister” (8 times) or “serve” (7 times).

Concerning 1 Timothy 3:10, George Bush claimed: “In this instance ‘the office of a deacon’ is wholly imaginary; in the original it is, let them serve, or be in service” (Priesthood and Clergy, p. 70). George Bush contended that “the two pompous nouns substantive, ‘the office of a deacon’ when examined by the original, turn out to be phantoms of the translators, introduced into the text to take the place of a verb expressing quite another thought” (Ibid.). George Bush also maintained that this rendering “is plainly a coinage of the translators” (p. 73).

What's with all the really old commentators? Anyone pre-1900 is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to NT Greek semantics, since most of the papyri (and their usages) were discovered in the early 20th century.

We have no real English equivalent to the Greek word, so IMO either rendering is okay.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, I've come up for the best rendering for diakoneo: "I deak." Remember how we joke about the job of a deacon is to deak. Well, there you go!

It occurs about 36 times in the NT, usually with the meaning of to serve, but not as a slave but rather as a trusted household servant. The word often means to serve as a waiter or a steward during a meal.

In the two verses in question, 1 Tim. 3:10 & 13, I think "serve as a deacon" would be perfectly okay, since the context there is about the qualifications for a deacon--a new office in the church. On the other hand, "minister" is okay, but is a more general term. The caveat here would be that explanation would be needed because of the context. Any of these renderings would be a "formal equivalent" in my thinking, though I don't usually like that term.

 

[Yeshua1]

Okay, I've come up for the best rendering for diakoneo: "I deak." Remember how we joke about the job of a deacon is to deak. Well, there you go!

It occurs about 36 times in the NT, usually with the meaning of to serve, but not as a slave but rather as a trusted household servant. The word often means to serve as a waiter or a steward during a meal.

In the two verses in question, 1 Tim. 3:10 & 13, I think "serve as a deacon" would be perfectly okay, since the context there is about the qualifications for a deacon--a new office in the church. On the other hand, "minister" is okay, but is a more general term. The caveat here would be that explanation would be needed because of the context. Any of these renderings would be a "formal equivalent" in my thinking, though I don't usually like that term.

Would either of them being used qualify as being a dynamic rendering ionto English then?

 

[John of Japan]

Would either of them being used qualify as being a dynamic rendering ionto English then?

Nope.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope.

Would you see them as being the same accuracy in giving to us the intended meaning as say the Nkjv/Nas did?

 

[John of Japan]

Would you see them as being the same accuracy in giving to us the intended meaning as say the Nkjv/Nas did?

Can't answer that. I'm on vacation and away from my resources.