Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • RUSETAI in 2 Corinthians 1:10

    This is not a seriously doubtful textual issue, but I wanted to make a brief summary and comment on it, because it can help illustrate the interaction between internal and external evidence in a case where the two point in the same direction. For a very brief outline of textual criticism, see Textual Criticism-Briefly. In addition, this is discussed briefly in the Anchor Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians I’m currently reading, so I’m doing something to fulfill my promise to blog my reading.

    The text, very literally translated, reads thus:

    He who from such a death [peril of death] saved us (aorist of ruomai), and will save (future of ruomai), [that is] the one on whom we have hoped, will also yet save (future of ruomai) us.

    Now let me present the ESV, which is very literal, but a bit more readable:

    He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.

    You can probably see a number of translation issues, such as where in the translation does “on him we have set our hope” belong. It can equally be translated with the final “rusetai” as with the second one. These three repetitions of the same word have created a bit of a textual jumble, but in this case we have good external attestation for a single reading, and the internal evidence backs it up.

    One key textual rule is that the more difficult text, if one can make any sense of it, is to be preferred. Why is this? Well, scribes tended to correct in order to clarify. On the other hand, the rule is not absolute, because scribes would make errors that created nonsense. So everything has to be used with care.

    Furnish (AB) simply comments that “[t]he text translated has the best attestation, however (P46 [aleph] B C et al.), and the variants doubtless originated as attempts to deal with the fact that the kai rysetai appears twice, . . .” (pp. 114-115)

    Metzger makes a similar note, but points out further that a number of slightly later manuscripts (A D* [psi] itd,61 syrp ethpp) simply omit it, and some even later ones correct the second instance of ruomai to the present tense.

    I’m not going to try to cite all this external evidence in detail. The external evidence seems pretty convincing to me, even though Metzger’s textual commentary only rates the reading a C. (I’m working from the companion to the 3rd edition, not the current one to which I linked.) The internal evidence is strong, however. The later readings are simply explained by the earlier.

    1. There is no reason why a scribe who encountered the verse with only two repetitions would add another.
    2. There is no reason to alter the second instance to present, unless one is making a sequence of aorist, present, future.
    3. There is every reason to make either alteration if one is presented with all three together, including two repetitions of the future.

    Thus the internal evidence seems compelling to me combined with the good external evidence.

  • The New Interpreter’s Study Bible

    I have my stable of study Bibles that I regularly consult and recommend to students. Three key ones are The Learning Bible (CEV) [TLB], the Oxford Study Bible (REB), and the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV). Though I don’t use it regularly (there have to be some books I don’t read!), the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV) is also excellent.

    Recently, however, I used a Christmas gift card at Barnes and Noble to pick up a copy of the New Interpreter’s Study Bible [NISB]. It has been around for some time (2003 copyright), but I’ve only glanced briefly at it in libraries. Now that I have a copy of my own, I’d like to comment on it.

    It is 2298 pages, not including maps. The majority of that is a combined Bible text with notes. The notes are more extensive than either the Oxford Study Bible or the New Oxford Annotated Bible. In general they are a little bit more readable, so this Bible will be useful for people with less Biblical background. It is still not a “simple” study Bible, and doesn’t encroach on the audience of TLB. That is due both to the notes themselves, in which the NISB uses a heavier vocabulary and style, and the translation on which it is based (NRSV for the NISB). It does not take space with illustrations as does TLB either. The information is much more densely packed on the page.

    There are some major positive points, however. If you find something like TLB a bit basic for you, these notes dig deeper into scholarly and critical issues. I am extremely impressed with the introductions to Biblical books, which seem balanced and complete. The notes themselves are extensive and clear, and yet manage to avoid simply telling you what the text means. They give an overview of why as well. The excurses are also excellent and provide valuable information. For example, one excursus in Isaiah 42 provides an introduction to the servant passages.

    In terms of total size, I think the fairest comparison would be to the Oxford Study Bible [OSB], which is 1597 pages, also excluding maps. Its print also appears slightly larger. It has a total of 199 pages of general articles, compared to NISB’s 36 pages. The OSB also spends a greater amount of time on critical theories in the passages I have studied thus far. That point should not be overemphasized. Both discuss the issue, and I have not read all of the book introductions.

    Another advantage of NISB is incorporating fairly recent scholarship. That is, of course, the hazard of aging books–new research is done, new commentaries are published, and theories fade and are replaced by new ones. On that, the NISB is nice just because it’s newer.

    This is not a devotional study Bible. I think that many preacher’s will find it valuable. It will provide you with background and with suggestions for understanding and interpretation. In fact, much of that 36 page section of general articles deals not with technical stuff (Hebrew poetry, literary forms, ancient near eastern cultures), but rather with inspiration and authority, and the ways in which we interpret. This all suggests a practical intention for the book.

    For me, NISB is not going to replace my trusty and severely word OSB, but I have added it to my primary shelf where I keep those materials I consult regularly in Bible study.

  • Questioning God-Given Rights

    I’m following Joe Carter’s new series on his particular conservative beliefs with interest. I think it’s a valuable thing to do, and blogging about it should provide some interesting reading and discussion.

    My interest is in the concept of God-given rights, or rights with which we are endowed by the creator, and the value of that concept (Point 4 in Joe’s second post). Of course, any American reader should know that I’m paraphrasing there from the Declaration of Independence, and that I’m likely to get into trouble asking questions about it. This sort of thing is like machine-gunning sacred cows. But I do question the value of the claim that rights are given by God in political discourse.

    (more…)

  • Christian Carnival CCIV Posted

    . . . at Parableman.

  • Christian Carnival CCIV Posted

    . . . at Parableman.

  • Spiritual Gifts in 1 Corinthians 1:7

    The lectionary passages for Epiphany 2 (Cycle A) include 1 Corinthians 1:1-9. In verse seven, we have the phrase “spiritual gift.” It’s interesting to note which word is used for “spiritual gift”–in this case charisma. This is not the word used in 1 Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1, which both use pneumatikos.

    A number of interpreters have suggested that in 1 Corinthians 12:1, pneumatikos should be translated either “spiritual people” or “spiritual matters.” I suggested in a previous post that, despite the translation hardships it presents, the same thing is true of 1 Corinthians 14:1.

    Part of my reasoning for that is that in no other case does the use of pneumatikos refer to spiritual gifts. It refers to spirituality, but not specifically to spiritual gifts. They are all called charismata. This verse, 1 Corinthians 1:7, reminds us of that, in the very book in which those other passages occur.

    Why is this important? I think it strongly reminds us that God’s gifts come by God’s grace and are not ours somehow by spiritual nature. Gifts should always be related to grace–received by grace, used graciously, and intended for the spread of God’s grace.

    In addition, 1 Corinthians 1:7 again points out to us the fact that gifts are given to the church. They equip the church for its work of ministry. They are not an individual possession that may be hoarded.

  • A Common Theme for the Epiphany 2 Lectionary

    I’m probably going to talk about common themes later, but I noticed something interesting that might not be the first thing one would notice in these passages, and that’s a combined sense of inadequacy without God’s Spirit, and the adequacy given by the presence of God’s Spirit. In Isaiah 49, the servant is taken as an infant, and equipped by God. This parallels John 1, I think, where we do not have an expression of inadequacy, but we have the giving of the Spirit at baptism, and ministry that follows it.

    Inadequacy is specifically expressed in Psalm 40:1-11 “pulled me up from the seething chasm” and “from the mud of the mire” (v. 2, NJB), and in Paul’s letters frequently, but demonstrated in our passage again through the focus on “called by the will of God (v. 1), and “relying on God” (v. 9).

    Whether or not the inadequacy is expressed, in each case the preparation and the giving of the Spirit is the launching point for ministry. We talk about the baptism of Jesus as demonstrating the path that each Christian must follow. Jesus is obedient to God, even though he has not sinned and doesn’t require baptism for forgiveness of sins. But note also that Jesus is not inadequate, as we would normally think of inadequacy, but he also launches his ministry when he receives the Spirit.

    There is a pattern there for modern ministry (clergy or lay) as well.

  • Emotions and Candidates

    I think there’s something wrong with us when one candidate’s show of emotion can get this much press time. I’m hoping that the public are much less excited about this than the press, but political commentators seem to be trying to make it a pivotal point in her campaign, part of that every shifting momentum that they loudly proclaim has changed with every new piece of un-news.

    Hillary Clinton is not my favorite candidate for president, but she is not a bad candidate, and how much emotion she shows would likely not be a major issue if she were not a woman. I find this frenzy about a few moments of emotion, one way or another disgusting. I think it’s a major display of sexism, all the more dangerous because nobody wants to acknowledge it.

    Let’s do a little bit more analysis of her policies, comparing programs, experience, and vision. The media needs to spend more time on substantive issues. They need to spend less time talking about themselves. So much of the coverage has to do with “what I (the journalist) did when I was with candidate x.” Little information is passed on.

    Agree or disagree with Hillary Clinton, she has given us enough specifics in her record and in campaign position papers to occupy a good deal of discussion time. She may not be your favorite candidate or mine, but she deserves to be judged on that record, not on whether she displays precisely the right amount of emotion. I’ve found that one cannot display the right amount of emotion for everyone. I suspect that will be the case here. (My wife comments on this in her book on grief. People will actually criticize others for how they express grief at the loss of a loved one or in some other hardship situation. That is such arrogance!)

    I’m going to contribute to this by writing blog posts on candidate’s positions, starting with health care proposals. I’m working on the research for that now.

  • The Momentum has Shifted – Not!

    You’ll notice that I don’t make predictions about who is going to win elections around here. That’s not because I’m really modest and don’t want to let you know how right I am; it’s because I generally don’t have a clue. I do remembering saying to my wife during the 2000 election that I didn’t think they had Florida projected correctly after I looked at a precinct map, but that was because of the obvious (and constant) problem that people project Florida before the panhandle votes get counted, and the panhandle votes heavily Republican.

    So after Iowa and New Hampshire, who is listening to the pundits any more? Those guys don’t know any more than I do, and I can testify to you that on the matter of who’s going to win, that means they know, um, some tiny amount indistinguishable from nothing.

    No, this is not a post with high intellectual content. It’s just that their words annoyed me leading up to both events, I think they have been proven sufficiently wrong, and I think their faces should be rubbed in it, just so they won’t proclaim what they don’t know with such confidence.

    It reminds me of the lousy sports reporters who sense a shift in momentum every team a different team scores. In football I’ve heard reporters speak about shifts of momentum after a team made a first down. “No,” I want to yell at them, “they just made a first down.”

    On February 5, we have New York and New Jersey, amongst many others. I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton is going to give up before that, and I suspect Rudy isn’t going to either. I might like them to, but wishes aren’t predictions.

  • I Posted on Prescriptive Grammar

    . . . over at my Jevlir blog.