Timothy, because of our faith, you are like a son to me. 1 Tim 1:1
.
From the CEV at least, it strikes me afresh that Paul's relationship with Timothy was like a father to a son. It's funny that the NIV's 'my true son in the faith' didn't evoke the same response in me although it is perhaps semantically stronger. However, neither version actually sticks to a word-for-word translation, which would be something like,
.
'To Timothy, true child in faith'.
.
Now the question is, where should the emphasis be put in that phrase? Should it be on 'true' - the genuineness of Timothy's birth into faith? Or should it be on 'child' - Timothy as a child or son or offspring? Or should it be on 'faith' - the faith into which Timothy has been born? Because wherever you think the emphasis should be will effect the translation you make.
.
If it's on 'true' then you ramp up the volume on it by describing Timothy's birth into faith as being authentic, genuine, valid, true. Perhaps, 'To Timothy, a truly genuine child in the faith.'
.
If it's on Timothy as a child, then child of whom? Child of faith or child of Paul's? If you opt for the latter and I guess the argument goes that this is a letter addressed to Timothy from Paul and is therefore setting out the basis of their relationship, then you ramp up this volume. There is no 'my', as has often been put in, to make effectively, 'true child of mine'. But if you are wanting to use this phrase in connection to Paul & Timothy then you might introduce a 'my' because it must surely have been on the tip of Paul's tongue, right? Thus, 'To Timothy, truly a son of mine in the faith.' Or 'Timothy, because of our faith, you are like a son to me.'
.
If it's on faith then you might perhaps translate the 'in' as 'of '. Or you might understand the phrase to mean that Timothy is truly childlike in faith or that he is someone perhaps still young in faith but genuine in his pursuit of it. So something like, 'To Timothy, truly childlike when it comes to simple, sincere believing.'
.
But what if you did come away from the CEV thinking that Paul had actually written the words to Timothy as they have translated it? It may well have been Paul's intention to say exactly that. At the very least, the CEV is shining a light on the phrase in just the right way to produce shadows of meaning in all those places. But significantly, Paul doesn't use the word 'son' here, which would have given a stronger sense of Timothy being an offspring of Paul's and he didn't use the word 'my' either.
.
There are some who would be aghast that so much time is spent thinking through this one small phrase. But it actually would have real implications
.
- in terms of comparing & contrasting Timothy's ministry with Paul's apostolic calling
- to see if there are significant similarities of commission
- for an impartation of spiritual DNA in Timothy that comes from Paul.
.
It also sends a powerful statement about the nature of the relationship between Paul and this young disciple. It sounds like a warm, rich & formative relationship. It also has implications in terms of how those in ministry might possibly be called to seek to mentor other leaders.
.
Looking at the bigger picture, it is again an example of the extent to which the translating process is strongly interpretative. Even the order of the original words can sometimes provide the missing emphasis we are looking for here. It's a subtle thing.
.
I have found in even the most enquiring of quarters a tendency in the translating process for people to want to come down strongly for one particular answer and in effect to shut down debate. I guess we're all paid in whatever field to give answers after all. But I think it would actually be more Jewish in style to leave the question open sometimes. To retain a little bit of the mystery in the text. To make you do the work. In this instance, to leave the reader with the job of having to decide for themselves how Paul is trying to address Timothy. And that's harder to do in a dynamic equivalence because the work is done for you and the original translation effectively masked from sight, and I guess, maybe it should be for the purposes of aiding the reader in interpretation. But the question begs itself. Can the CEV really lay claim to be a translation or is it just a very easy-to-read interpretation?
In a more formal translation the words should be left plain. Then coming to a translation would become a bit like going to look at a masterpiece in the National Gallery. The picture sits framed in simplicity against the wall with a light shining on it to illuminate the whole. First you sit on the bench provided and take it all in. Then you look at different bits of it. Then having soaked in it and studied it, you come to your own conclusions of what the painter is trying to achieve and you preserve an imprint of the whole in your memory.
.
For what it's worth, I think the affirming warmth and tender affection of Paul towards Timothy seems most evident in the greeting to me. In that Paul doesn't use 'my son' but rather 'true child', I think he is wanting to affirm the genuine nature of Timothy's heritage of faith wherever it has originated. And I do think he probably meant 'son of mine' because it is a relational greeting though for all the reasons above I wouldn't presume to translate it that way myself because it's too prescriptive.
.
Finally, it is always going to be very difficult to find Paul's meaning because he wraps up so many deep concepts in phrases such as 'in faith'. So we will always have to wrestle with Paul's words and pray that in the process the Holy Spirit will grant us revelation of the truths Paul is pointing to. And that's something that will always be worth spending time doing.
