2 Peter 2:16

2:16 yet was rebuked ¹  for his own transgression (a dumb donkey, ²  speaking with a human voice, ³  restrained the prophet’s madness). ⁴ 

2 Peter 2:22

2:22 They are illustrations of this true proverb: ⁵  “A dog returns to its own vomit,” ⁶  and “A sow, after washing herself, ⁷  wallows in the mire.” ⁸ 

2 Peter 3:3

3:3 Above all, understand this: ⁹  In the last days blatant scoffers ¹⁰  will come, being propelled by their own evil urges ¹¹ 

2 Peter 3:17

3:17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, ¹²  be on your guard that you do not get led astray by the error of these unprincipled men ¹³  and fall from your firm grasp on the truth. ¹⁴ 

[2:16]  ¹ tn Grk “but he had a rebuke.”

[2:16]  ² tn The Greek word ἄφωνος (afwno") means “mute, silent” or “incapable of speech.” For reasons of English style the word “dumb” was used in the translation. Despite the potential for misunderstanding (since “dumb” can refer to a lack of intellectual capability) more dynamic glosses were judged to be inelegant.

[2:16]  ³ tn Grk “a voice of a (man/person).”

[2:16]  ⁴ sn Balaam’s activities are detailed in Num 22—24 (see also Num 31:8, 16).

[2:22]  ⁵ tn Grk “the [statement] of the true proverb has happened to them.” The idiom in Greek cannot be translated easily in English.

[2:22]  ⁶ tn The quotation is a loose rendering of Prov 26:11. This proverb involves a participle that is translated like a finite verb (“returns”). In the LXX this line constitutes a subordinate and dependent clause. But since the line has been lifted from its original context, it has been translated as an independent statement.

[2:22]  ⁷ tn Or “after being washed.” The middle verb may be direct (“wash oneself”) or permissive (“allow oneself to be washed”).

[2:22]  ⁸ tn The source of this quotation is uncertain. Heraclitus has often been mentioned as a possible source, but this is doubtful. Other options on the translation of the second line include a sow, having (once) bathed herself (in mud), (returns) to wallowing in the mire, or a sow that washes herself by wallowing in the mire (BDAG 181 s.v. βόρβορος). The advantage of this last translation is that no verbs need to be supplied for it to make sense. The disadvantage is that in this context it does not make any contribution to the argument. Since the source of the quotation is not known, there is some guesswork involved in the reconstruction. Most commentators prefer a translation similar to the one in the text above.

[3:3]  ⁹ tn Grk “knowing this [to be] foremost.” Τοῦτο πρῶτον (touto prwton) constitute the object and complement of γινώσκοντες (ginwskonte"). The participle is loosely dependent on the infinitive in v. 2 (“[I want you] to recall”), perhaps in a telic sense (thus, “[I want you] to recall…[and especially] to understand this as foremost”). The following statement then would constitute the main predictions with which the author was presently concerned. An alternative is to take it imperativally: “Above all, know this.” In this instance, however, there is little semantic difference (since a telic participle and imperatival participle end up urging an action). Cf. also 2 Pet 1:20.

[3:3]  ¹⁰ tn The Greek reads “scoffers in their scoffing” for “blatant scoffers.” The use of the cognate dative is a Semitism designed to intensify the word it is related to. The idiom is foreign to English. As a Semitism, it is further incidental evidence of the authenticity of the letter (see the note on “Simeon” in 1:1 for other evidence).

[3:3]  ¹¹ tn Grk “going according to their own evil urges.”

[3:17]  ¹³ tn Grk “knowing beforehand.”

[3:17]  ¹⁴ tn Or “lawless ones.”

[3:17]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “fall from your firmness.”