The Upper Register Blog

Here.

I recently had a pastor who was preaching through 1 Thessalonians ask me about the textual problem in 1 Thess 2:7. Some manuscripts read “infants” (νήπιοι) and others have “gentle” (ἤπιοι). It is a difference of only one letter. In response, I wrote two emails:

—————

First email:

As I suspected, Metzger has a good treatment in his Textual Commentary. The majority of the UBS Editorial Committee opted for νήπιοι on the ground that the external evidence in its support was stronger. However, Metzger and Wikgren wrote a minority report opting for ἤπιοι, arguing that “despite the weight of external evidence, only ἤπιοι seems to suit the context, where the apostle’s gentleness makes an appropriate sequence with the arrogance disclaimed in ver. 6″ (p. 562).

From an internal text-critical point of view, the arguments for each side cancel each other out, since there is a logical transcriptional explanation for the rise of the secondary textual variant:  assuming that ἤπιοι is original, dittography would explain the origin of νήπιοι; conversely, assuming νήπιοι is original, then haplography would explain ἤπιοι.

From an external text-critical point of view, νήπιοι has better manuscripts in its support. But it also makes a reading that is harder to jive with the context (the abrupt switch from Paul describing himself as a child to then describing himself as a nurse).

Bottom line, this is one of those cases where the science of textual criticism does not yield a decisive conclusion, and ultimately you have to pick the option that seems to fit best in context. As F. F. Bruce says, the νήπιοι reading “is inappropriate in the immediate context, where the writers go on to compare themselves not to infants but to a nurse or a parent caring for her children” (WBC, p. 31).

Of course, one could still make a plausible case for νήπιοι on the grounds that (a) Paul has been known to mix his metaphors, and (b) it creates a rather startling image — Paul as an infant! — just the sort of radical, Christocentrically self-abasing thing you would expect from Paul.

However, as much as I am attracted to reading “infants,” I think the view of Metzger and Bruce is best, because I think Paul would have said, “we became as (ὡς) infants,” whereas in Greek it literally says, “we became infants” (assuming νήπιοι). I realize that this isn’t decisive, but the absence of ὡς makes me lean toward reading “gentle” (ἤπιοι).

—————

Second email:

So this morning I came to 1 Thess 2:7 in my Greek reading. The more I think about it, I’m convinced that “gentle” is the right reading. Here’s why:  the immediately preceding line is about Paul’s foregoing the right to receive financial support. “…  even though as apostles of Christ we could have been burdensome.” Being “burdensome” likely refers to the right to receive financial support (cp. the use of lexemes from the βαρ- group in v 9; 2 Thess 3:8; 2 Cor 11:9; 12:16). This financial reading of “burdensome” comports with Paul’s earlier statement that he did not come “with a pretext for greed” (v 5), and it fits with Paul’s boast that he worked night and day so as not to be a burden to the Thessalonians (v 9). So, if I am right in taking v 7a as having to do with not wanting to be a financial burden, then the very next clause (v 7b) should be descriptive of something that is an alternative to being a financial burden. “Instead/rather/but we became gentle among you” fits well. On the other hand, the reading “Instead/rather/but we became infants among you” does not fit well, and in fact creates considerable dissonance, since infants are totally dependent on the financial support of their parents.

—————

Anyway, I thought you might be interested in this little debate.

In a previous post I pointed out that there is a debate among New Testament scholars on the capability of Paul’s audiences. Some think they were largely illiterate converts from raw paganism. On this view, most of Paul’s allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures would have “befuddled” them. Others think that Paul’s audiences were a good deal more familiar with the Old Testament through their pre-Christian adherence to the diaspora synagogue as God-fearers or sympathizers with Judaism. 

Why is this important? Because if the latter view is correct, then the Septuagint is far more important as a background for analyzing the lexical semantics of Paul’s theological terms than secular Koine Greek. Here is what I wrote in a paper The Use of “Hellenistic Judaism” in Pauline Studies: 

“If Paul’s audiences were familiar with the Scriptures in Greek, then it stands to reason that we ought to pay more attention to the role of the Septuagint in influencing the semantic content of various Greek words used in the New Testament. Many of the lexemes used in the New Testament are non-technical terms the meanings of which are best defined by their usage in secular Koine Greek. However, there are certain terms, particular those with theological significance, whose meanings may be influenced by their usage in the Greek Bible as used by Greek-speaking Jews. For example, the old debate over whether ἱλαστήριον in Rom. 3:25 denotes the mercy seat receives fresh illumination when we presuppose a God-fearer base in the Christian community at Rome. The arguments fall into two main camps. Traditionally, commentators believed that the term should be interpreted in light of its usage in the Septuagint, where, in 21 of its 27 occurrences, it is used as a technical term for the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant. But ever since Deissmann, many scholars began to turn away from this interpretation, arguing that the absence of the definite article suggests that the term is merely a substantived, neuter form of the adjective ἱλαστήριος (’propitiating’), which is well attested in ordinary, secular Greek. On this view the word in Rom. 3:25 would best be translated ‘means of propitiation.’ Some have urged that this view best fits the largely Gentile character of the Roman church who, it was believed, would be unable to catch the allusion to the mercy seat. However, if we assume that the Gentile Christians in Rome were in contact with the Diaspora synagogues in Rome prior to their conversion, then the traditional view becomes less unlikely. It would be possible, in fact, to argue for a combined position in which the modern translation ‘means of propitiation’ is maintained, but at the same time acknowledging that Paul’s Septuagint-savvy audience would have been able to catch the allusion to the ἱλαστήριον that stood at the very heart of Israel’s cultic relationship with God. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Philo and the author of Hebrews (both of whom used the Septuagint as their Bible) employed ἱλαστήριον to refer to the mercy seat. This suggests that, for a wide cross-section of Greek-speaking Judaism, the Septuagint exercised a considerable influence upon the semantic domain of this particular lexeme. After Deissmann’s work proving that the Greek of the New Testament is ordinary Koine Greek rather than some specialized Semitic Greek, scholars have tended to downplay the role of the Septuagint in New Testament lexicography, believing that contemporary Koine usage is the final determinant of meaning. Deissmann’s work was a needed corrective in his day. But scholarship has over-corrected. The need now is to bring back a cautious use of the Septuagint to the discipline of New Testament lexicography.” (pp. 38-40) 

Ben Witherington has some good advice for evangelicals on how to decide this November. He says, Don’t be a one-issue voter. Rather, prioritize what you think are the most crucial issues facing the nation at this particular juncture in history and evaluate the candidates based on those issues. I don’t know if Witherington would agree, but for me, with pressing issues like the future role of American troops in Iraq, the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the possibility of a nuclear Iran, as well as the most recent developments in the financial crisis, we do not have the luxury of voting solely on the basis of a candidate’s stance on abortion or other social issues. I understand the deep biblical conviction that drives some to this position, but it is ultimately a zeal that is not according to knowledge. The values of the kingdom of God are eschatological and heavenly, and cannot be so simply translated into the earthly transitory realm of public policy and civil law. To vote solely on the basis of a single-minded zeal to implement heaven on earth while overlooking the urgent, temporal problems of the city of man is not only to neglect the common grace arena but is, ironically, to work for its premature destruction. 

Christopher D. Stanley thinks that Paul’s audiences were largely illiterate Gentiles who converted to Christianity with no prior background in Judaism:

We can assume that except for the few people who had attended the synagogue as Jewish sympathizers, no one in Paul’s churches had any significant knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures before entering the Christian church … The idea that Paul expected his Gentile audiences to recognize and appreciate his many allusions and other unmarked references to the Jewish Scriptures appears to be mistaken … Paul grossly misjudged the capacities of his audience. As an educated Jew who was accustomed to thinking and arguing in biblical terms, Paul slipped naturally into biblical modes of discourse in the heat of his most argumentative letters without stopping to consider whether his audience, which was mostly Gentile and illiterate, could have understood his many references to the Jewish Scriptures. The bulk of Paul’s audience was probably befuddled by most of these references.

Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 45, 48-49. (To be fair, I should point out that the last quote on p. 49 appears as the second in a list of four possible explanations, but Stanley goes on to say that all four explanations contain elements of truth.)

But Margaret M. Mitchell writes:

There is probably some truth behind Luke’s picture of Paul finding adherents to his gospel among the ‘God-fearers’ or ‘devout,’ Gentiles who were already in some way associated with Jews, attending synagogue, learning Jewish sacred texts and lore or serving as benefactors, but not undergoing circumcision to become full converts … This can also explain how a message that relies so much on scriptural interpretation for its cogency and credibility could have been intelligible to Gentiles who would otherwise have been befuddled by claims about ‘the anointed one’, ‘the fulfillment of scripture’, and the necessity for deliverance from divine wrath.

Margaret M. Mitchell, “Gentile Christianity,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 1: Origins to Constantine (ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 119.

It would appear that there is a bit of debate among scholars on this point. I throw my hat in with Mitchell and think Stanley is way off base. (Interestingly, both scholars use the word “befuddled.”) 

I saw this cartoon slide-show back in March when Andrew linked to it (warning: contains profanity). It explains the underlying cause of the current financial crisis, but obviously written before the most recent developments. To me it all boils down to greed — on the part of borrowers (who wanted to get into the housing market while the interest rates were so low), on the part of lending institutions (who didn’t want to miss their piece of the action), and on the part of investment banks (filled with 28 year-old MBA grads concocting complex financial instruments in order to somehow cover up the smelly loans and then lie about the massive risks to investors).

And now we the taxpayers are going to save their butts to the tune of $700 billion? Paulson and Bernanke are warning us that if we don’t the consequences to the global economy will be dire. But my worry is — What are the long-term consequences of adding to our enormous national debt and nationalizing a significant portion of the financial services industry? Do we know enough to make this decision rationally? Why are we being scared into it? The whole thing just reeks of corruption and lies.

I am reminded of this verse:  Jesus Christ ”gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from this present evil age” (Gal 1:4). The whole rotten garbage can of greed and wickedness, including the most recent addition to the heap, namely, the lie that the government can magically step in and rescue us from it all, pain-free!

Here.

Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a nice 5-part series on evangelicalism for the Gospel Driven Blog. The first two posts offer a brief sketch of the history of evangelicalism. The last three posts summarize the essential marrow of evangelicalism. He concludes:  “One cannot hold a less word-centered, Christ-centered, and cross-centered theology, or hold doctrines that defy, deny, or render inconsequential those doctrines and still be, in the strongest biblical sense of the idea, Evangelical.”

Here.

I was on iTunes last night downloading some new music for my iPod and I discovered that they have all of the great Petra albums. Awesome! I enjoyed listening to Petra when I was a teenager. The thing you have to understand is that the church of my youth (the Assembly) taught the old classic fundie line that rock music was the devil’s music since it was allegedly based on African drum beats. So listening to CCM – and Petra was one of the edgier bands at the time – was a great way to rebel in a kind of safe Christian way.

I liked Petra’s album This Means War (1987), as well as Petra Praise: The Rock Cries Out (1989) (”The King of Glory Shall Come In” always pumps me up). But Back to the Street — which came out in 1986 (the year I graduated from high school and started college at UCLA) – has a special place in my heart because of these two great songs:

King’s Ransom

It’s such a paradox - it’s such a mystery
Why a King would leave His throne to save humanity
They could not have known when they mocked Him in disgrace
They could not have known when they spit upon His face

(Chorus)
The Rose of Sharon wore a crown of thorns that day
The carpenter had a nail right through His hand
The Master of the earth became a servant of no worth
And paid a King’s ransom for my soul
He paid a King’s ransom for my soul

Creator of the earth - Name above all names
Some just stood in unbelief when listening to His claims
They could not have known when they hit Him with their fists
They could not have known when they nailed his feet and wrists

The ransom that He paid was the sacrifice he made
The life of a King in place of me
The shame that He bore for the rich and for the poor
Changed His crown of thorns into glory

Fool’s Gold

Some say this life I live is only foolishness
No waiting pot of gold in the faith that I possess
But the treasures of this life will slowly turn to dust
And this fool will find His gold in the Savior that I trust

(Chorus)
Fool’s gold - it’s waiting in a crown
Fool’s gold - in a city coming down
I’ll leave the gold I can’t afford
For the higher prize I’m pressing toward
I’ll preach the foolish cross of Christ
And wait for my reward
Fool’s gold

The wisdom of the cross - is easy to receive
But only foolishness - to them that don’t believe
They may say that I’m a fool for the cross that I proclaim
But the gold that I must seek won’t be found in earthly fame

When the crowns of gold are laid before His feet
Then the worthy Lamb of God is the treasure we will keep
Some may call me foolish - some may call me odd
But I’d rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God

Although I really liked the arena rock style that began with Back to the Street (and the new lead singer), one of their older songs may actually be their best:

Not of This World (skip to minute 2:00)

We are pilgrims in a strange land
We are so far from our homeland
With each passing day it seems so clear
This world will never want us here
We’re not welcome in this world of wrong
We are foreigners who don’t belong

(Chorus)
We are strangers, we are aliens
We are not of this world

We are envoys, we must tarry
With this message we must carry
There’s so much to do before we leave
With so many more who may believe
Our mission here can never fail
And the gates of hell will not prevail

Jesus told us men would hate us
But we must be of good cheer
He has overcome this world of darkness
And soon we will depart from here

After the Republican National Convention this week, these are some good songs to orient us to what really matters. This past week has been discouraging for me because just when it seemed like my party was actually going to nominate a post-partisan reformer to lead us beyond the polarization of the past eight years, all of a sudden we have a full-blown Rovian culture war on our hands with the addition of Sarah Palin to the GOP ticket. I’m not even sure McCain realizes what forces he has unleashed. The conservative whining about the alleged mistreatment at the hands of the mainstream media, the us vs. them, heartland hockey-moms vs. Beltway elite crap is just driving me nuts.

Anyway, folks, this is a good time to remember that we are not of this world and that we are waiting for a city coming down. Take it away Petra!