(12 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I have discussed the purpose of 1 Thessalonians and spent a couple of posts talking about one of its most interesting passages, on which the modern Christian notion of a “rapture” is based, I am able to return to my point of departure, a textual variant found in 1 Thess. 2:7. This variant has nothing to do with the question of what Paul thought would happen when Jesus returned, sometime in his lifetime. It is an earlier part of the letter where Paul is reminding the Thessalonians of the time that he had spent with them when he converted them to their new faith.
This is a very joyful part of the letter, one of the most sentimental passages of all of Paul’s letters, where he speaks of the relationship he had with his converts when he was there. But the description is a bit hard to pin down, in part because of this one textual variant. The variant depends on the presence or non-presence of just one letter of the alphabet. Some manuscripts have it, and others don’t. And it is very hard to decide which reading is to be preferred as what Paul wrote; moreoever, it is difficult to decide whether the change was made by a scribe accidentally or on purpose.
In chapter 2 of the book Paul is reminding the Thessalonians of the time he was with them. He begins the passage by pointing out that before he and his Christian companions had arrived in Thessalonica they had been “shamefully treated at Philippi” (2:2). In other words, they had met rejection and possibly violent opposition when establishing the church in this other city earlier. Possibly Paul and the others had been beaten up, or otherwise publicly shamed.
He goes on to say that when he preached the gospel to them, the Thessalonians, he did not use flattering words and he did not seek approval from people – but only from God (2:4-6). He indicates how he had spent his time with the Thessalonian, working “night and day, that we might not burden any of you, while we preached to you the gospel of God.” (2:9). This in itself is an interesting verse. Modern scholarship has taken it to mean that when Paul was with them, he had an actual job that he worked at all hours, so as not to be a financial strain on his converts (i.e., they did not have to support his preaching ministry through financial assistance). Paul apparently preached while on the job.
In the midst of these recollections comes the passage that I am interested in discussing: “We could have made demands upon you as apostles of Christ; but we were XXX among you,
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN. You’ll live a life of no regrets!!
I really regret not paying attention in Latin class. I know this is the Greek, but to know Latin would open up a ton of new avenues.
To me, “gentle” seems like the only sensible wording. How could “infants” (by definition, near-helpless) be *like* a “nurse” caring for someone else? (Am I missing something?)
Say, I have an OT question. I’m reading your New Testament textbook. And I’m wondering why, in Chapter 9, you don’t mention (even in parenthesis) that the author of Matthew was *wrong* in thinking there was a real Old-Testament prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Do you mention it in some other context, later? To me, that’s one of the most important points to be made about Matthew.
I’m finding your textbook very interesting. But if students have to read the New Testament to pass the course, I’d flunk! I actually tried. I read all of Mark, skimmed Matthew, and then gave up. For a non-believer, this is the most boring stuff ever written.
BTW, my 60-year-old Catholic Bible claims all the Gospels were written by the “saints” whose names are associated with them. It includes that “added-later” ending of Mark, with no mention of its ever having been questioned. And it claims Matthew was originally written in Aramaic!
See today’ post on “infants” and “nurse”
I thought I did deal with the LXX translation of Isa 7:14 picked up by Matthew. It’s in chapter 1.
Um, I don’t see it in Chapter 1, either. After looking for it there, I went to the Index. Checked not only references to “virgin birth” and “birth narratives,” but also “Septuagint” and “Isaiah.” I couldn’t find a reference to that mistranslation anywhere! Is it possible that you intended to relocate it in the Sixth Edition, but after you took it out of one chapter, you somehow failed to put it in another? Forgot, perhaps, to “save” something you’d typed?
Well, I’m sure it’s in there somewhere, but I’m out of the country and don’t have access to the book!
A follow-up question: Was there a *tradition* of Jewish holy men teaching through “parables,” before Jesus? I, for one, would find it extremely irritating that someone would go on like that instead of saying, plainly, what he *meant*!
Yes, we have similar parables in other Jewish teachers.
Doesn’t the sentence make more sense if the word were gentle? An infant is not like a nurse but a gentle person is like a nurse.
Yup, see today’s post.
Perhaps I am missing something. It seems to me “gentle” is the only reading which makes sense in context. Paul and his fellow missionary apostles are to the Thessalonians as a nurse is to children. If Paul and the other Apostles were “infants,” wouldn’t that contradict not making demands on the Thessalonians — Paul and his companions would be just the opposite of children who need care from their nurse?
See today’s post.
Amy idea of the number of hyplographies and the number of diplographies there are? And of these how many have meanings both ways?
I would think there would have to be a theoretical bound on those that don’t make sense.
No, I don’t know how many of each there were, or what their comparable numbers are. I’m sure others do!
Very interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explain all this.
I later checked out what’s said about parables in Wikipedia. They acknowledge that the relevant sections aren’t very well authenticated. But evidently, there are only five things that can definitely be considered “parables” in the Hebrew Bible. Many more in later Jewish writings!
“Silent reading was almost unheard of.” That’s a good one!
Ha!!
Bart, some Christians have stated that even if the body of Jesus was decomposed beyond recognition after 50 days, the body could still be identified as Jesus’s because of the crucifixion wounds, and by the fact that his bones were not broken. But say, the tomb wasn’t checked till a year later, when almost all the flesh was gone. Would they still be able to identify it? Not all crucified victims had their bones broken during 1st century crucifixion in Jerusalem , correct? I would assume an ample amount could have died fast like Jesus and not have needed to have their bones broken to quicken their death. What do you think?
But why should we think that none of his bones was broken? If we don’t think we can trust the Gospels on his burial, then I don’t think we should necessarily trust what John (and only John) says about the broken legs.
I am understanding Paul correctly in that he was actually implying a little bit of extortion tactics could have been used but they were trying to be gentle on the Thessolinians? Is this also the first written source of the Church as a money making venture? This makes Paul sound like an early Kenneth Copeland.
That’s not how I read it. He stresses in the passage that he worked day and night precisely so he would *not* have to rely on their financial help.
I believe if he meant “infants” his next sentence would have been “like children cared for by their nurse” instead of “like a nurse taking care of her children”. So it must be “gentle”. And he wouldn’t have been humbling himself as an infant since he was THE TEACHER.