2 Petrus 1:9

1:9 But ¹  concerning the one who lacks such things ²  – he is blind. That is to say, he is ³  nearsighted, since he has forgotten about the cleansing of his past sins.

2 Petrus 2:22

2:22 They are illustrations of this true proverb: ⁴  “A dog returns to its own vomit,” ⁵  and “A sow, after washing herself, ⁶  wallows in the mire.” ⁷ 

[1:9]  ¹ tn Grk “for.” The connection, though causal, is also adversative.

[1:9]  ² tn Grk “to the one for whom these things are not present.”

[1:9]  ³ tn The words “that is to say, he is” are not in Greek. The word order is unusual. One might expect the author to have said “he is nearsighted and blind” (as the NIV has so construed it), but this is not the word order in Greek. Perhaps the author begins with a strong statement followed by a clarification, i.e., that being nearsighted in regard to these virtues is as good as being blind.

[2:22]  ⁴ tn Grk “the [statement] of the true proverb has happened to them.” The idiom in Greek cannot be translated easily in English.

[2:22]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ tn Or “after being washed.” The middle verb may be direct (“wash oneself”) or permissive (“allow oneself to be washed”).

[2:22]  ⁷ 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.