Sunday Morning Greek Blog

March 11, 2012

The Passion Week of Christ

Filed under: John Gospel of,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of — Scott Stocking @ 2:11 pm

I have been swamped this past week or so with an albatross of an edit. I haven’t had time to put anything new together, but I thought with Resurrection Sunday coming up, I’d index the links to my blog posts on the final week of Christ’s earthly ministry. I’m guessing there might be a minister or two out there struggling for some sermon ideas.

“Why Have You Forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34, par. Psalm 22:1)

Thieves, Robbers, or Rebels?

“I Am the Resurrection and the Life” (John 11:25)

Judas’s Kiss (Matthew 26:48–49; Mark 14:45)

“If I’ve Told You Once, I’ve Told You a Thousand Times…”

εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (eis aphesin hamartiōn, ‘for the forgiveness of sins’)

Let the Sleeping Saints Arise!

“Father, Forgive Them…” (Luke 23:34)

A Truly Open Communion?

Peace to all!

Scott Stocking

February 27, 2012

Deciphering the Mark 1:4 Variants

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Immersion/Baptism,Mark Gospel of,New Testament,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 7:03 am

Details matter. Acts 28:13 and 1 Corinthians 13:3 each have variant readings that differ by only one letter each. Those differences make a huge difference in how the respective passages should be translated. Mark 1:4 is a little more complicated than that. Two small words are part of the variant readings for this passage: the one-letter definite article and a three-letter conjunction. Such small words only seem small, however. In reality, there is a big difference in how the passage is translated. Do we call John “the Baptizer” or just John in this passage?

Illustrating the Issue

I have listed the variant readings in Table 1 (only up to the word after the variant), with literal translations below each word. I put it in table form so those of you not familiar with what “variants” are can visualize the issue. The lexical forms of the individual words are the column headings for the verse, and each is linked the Strong’s entry on www.blueletterbible.org.

Table 1: Three Best-Attested Variant Readings of Mark 1:4a (as ordered in the UBS 3 apparatus)

Eclectic Greek Text

Primary Ancient Witness

γίνομαι

Ἰωάννης

ὁ

βαπτίζω

ἐν

ὁ

ἔρημος

καὶ

κηρύσσω

UBS Text

א (Sinaiticus)

ἐγένετο

Ἰωάννης

ὁ*

βαπτίζων

ἐν

τῇ

ἐρήμῳ

καὶ

κηρύσσων

It was

John

the

one baptizing

in

the

wilderness

and

[the] one preaching

[none]

B (Vaticanus)

ἐγένετο

Ἰωάννης

ὁ

βαπτίζων

ἐν

τῇ

ἐρήμῳ

κηρύσσων

was

John

the

Baptizer

in

the

wilderness

preaching

Stephen’s Textus Receptus

A (Alexandrinus)

ἐγένετο

Ἰωάννης

βαπτίζων

ἐν

τῇ

ἐρήμῳ

καὶ

κηρύσσων

was

John

baptizing

in

the

wilderness

and

preaching

*This is in the ancient text (Sinaiticus), but the UBS 3rd/4th editions have it in brackets with a grade of C indicating uncertainty it was in the autograph.

At the end of this post, I have included sentence diagrams (Figure 1) illustrating these variant readings.

The two main issues are:

  1. Was the definite article (ὁ) originally in the text before the participle βαπτίζων?
  2. Was the conjunction καὶ originally in the text before the participle κηρύσσων?

Textus Receptus (A Alexandrinus)

I will start with the Textus Receptus reading, because that seems to be the easiest to explain to English readers. A participle in English is a verb that usually adds –ing for the present participle or –ed for the past participle. They are usually used with a helping verb in the perfect tense (I have waited; I have been waiting) or passive voice (I was waited on by the butler; I am being waited on by the butler). Essentially in this reading, Mark uses the long form of the perfect tense (called periphrastic) instead of using a perfect tense verb. Here is how the King James renders the passage from the Textus Receptus:

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Notice that without the definite article, the participles are seen to function as verbs that complete the past-tense helping verb ἐγένετο. The helping verb is translated various ways in English depending on context. The KJV phrasing sounds a bit archaic to 21st-century ears, but a more contemporary way to put it might be “John was baptizing…and preaching.” In other words, the translators don’t see this as a title for John. It’s neither “John the Baptist” nor “John the Baptizer”; it’s just “John” with a double predicate. Two of the three “preferences” used when deciding between two or more variants are prefer the shorter reading and prefer the more difficult reading. This passage is shorter than the UBS text, but is not as difficult as that text or the B text. Another poorly attested variant based on the D text is similar to A but changes the order of the text. I don’t detail that in the text of this post. It is diagrammed in Figure 1, however.

B (Vaticanus)

The B (Vaticanus) text has the definite article with βαπτίζων, and the passage can then be read like “John the Baptizer” is a title, especially without the καὶ (“and”; I will cover why that is important in the discussion of the א [Sinaiticus] text). The lack of a καὶ suggests that the two participles should not be taken as a compound predicate, as in the A text. The second participle describes what John was doing in the wilderness and functions very much like an adverb, as anarthrous (=without the definite article) participles often do. So the B passage could be translated like this:

John the Baptizer was in the wilderness preaching baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

or

In the wilderness, John the Baptizer was preaching baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

This would be an acceptable translation if the B variant were not so poorly attested.

א (Sinaiticus)

I think that the reading of the א (Sinaiticus) text is the more difficult reading, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. For the most part, the καὶ is accepted as original to the text. If this is so, then it makes perfect sense to have the definite article before βαπτίζων. How are the two words related? It’s a rule I’ve discussed before in the blog, the Granville Sharp rule. If two singular, personal, non-proper nouns or substantives (words that can function as nouns; in this case βαπτίζων and κηρύσσων) are joined by καὶ, and only the first noun has the definite article, then the two nouns refer to the same person. This reading is slightly more difficult than the A text reading, because the construction is a bit more sophisticated. Since the two participles refer to the same person, the definite article would not be out of place. That doesn’t negate the reading of the A text necessarily, but since adding the definite article would not have been necessary to make sense of the text, it would seem to me that someone removed it somewhere along the way to make it a little easier to understand. In this case, the difficult passage is preferred over the shorter passage.

Given Mark’s penchant for shorter statements more to the point, the passage could be rendered like this:

There was John, the one baptizing in the wilderness and preaching baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

or

There was John, the Baptizer in the wilderness, the Preacher of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

The former option isn’t much different from the A text reading above, but instead of just doing a straight noun/verb translation, I assumed Mark was using the participles to explain which John he intended (“There was John, you know, the guy who baptizing and preaching”). Note that the last option, for consistency, treats both “Baptizer” and “Preacher” as titles, because the definite article before βαπτίζων governs κηρύσσων as well. Mark does use the phrase Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων in 6:14 as well, so there is precedence for the phrase as a title. My translation of 1:4 with the titles sounds a little bit awkward to our English ears, but Greek speakers would have understood the construction immediately.

Nominative Absolute?

On a more technical note, it is entirely possible that the entire verse was intended as a nominative absolute. That’s basically a phrase in the subject case that stands apart as a separate clause and serves as the antecedent for a pronoun. The first four words of vs. 5 give the verb and the pronoun for John (καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν “and [everyone] went out to him”) before Mark states the subjects of the verb, so that’s a good clue that 1:4 might be functioning as a nominative absolute. If that is so, the editors of the Greek New Testament should put a comma instead of a period at the end of verse 4. This would further support the reading of the א text.

Conclusion

Talking about textual variants may not be the most exciting topic in the world for a blog, but I think it is important that people understand the care scholars take to restore the original text of Scripture. I hope that I have made this understandable for most audiences, but if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me through the comments or e-mail link. Thank you for reading!

Peace

Scott Stocking

Appendix

Figure 1: Sentence Diagrams for Mark 1:4 Variants

February 20, 2012

Judas’s Kiss (Matthew 26:48–49; Mark 14:45)

Filed under: Acts,Life of Christ,Luke Gospel of,Mark Gospel of,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Passion,Septuagint — Scott Stocking @ 2:43 pm

Introduction

Those of us who read the Scriptures with any regularity (and even with some irregularity) have noticed the phenomenon of selective attention. What I mean by this is, when you read a passage of Scripture you know you’ve read before, you notice something that speaks to your heart in such a way that you say, “Why didn’t I see that before.” That has happened to me quite often in reading the English translations of the Bible, even though English is my native tongue. You’d think I’d remember more than I do when I read Scripture. But now on my second time through the Greek New Testament (GNT), I am experiencing that same phenomenon. Of course, having that full year of experience has seasoned me to notice certain features of the text that the occasional reader of the GNT might not notice.

Matthew 26:48–49

The subject of this blog post is one such passage. Matthew 26:48–49 is part of the story of Judas betraying Jesus to the authorities. My discussion in this post centers around the nature of the “kiss” by which Judas identified Jesus to the authorities. Here is how the text reads in the NIV, with the Greek words translated “kiss” identified:

Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss [φιλήσω from φιλέω] is the man; arrest him.” Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed [κατεφίλησεν from καταφιλέω] him.

The “Kiss”

New Testament Usage

Some may think the different words used for “kiss” here represent merely a stylistic difference, but an examination of the second word, καταφιλέω, reveals an interesting nuance that is lost in translation but not in context. The word is used six times in the New Testament: once each by Matthew and Mark (14:45) in their respective betrayal pericopes; and four times by Luke—three in his Gospel (Luke 7:38, 45; 15:20) and once in Acts (20:37).

Luke mentions the φιλέω kiss in his passion story, but he never outright says that Judas kissed Jesus. But it is Luke’s use of καταφιλέω that reveals the important nuance in Matthew and Mark. Luke 7 is the story of the woman who washes Jesus feet with perfume, tears, and her hair. The kissing is portrayed as a repeated action that at the same time indicates a sort of “sorrowful joy.” She is both truly repentant and truly grateful for the forgiveness Jesus would proclaim to her. In vs. 45, Luke even contrasts the φιλέω kiss he should have received from Simon as a customary greeting with the woman’s repeated καταφιλέω kissing. So Luke was fully aware of the contrast between the two words, just as Matthew and Mark were.

In Luke 15, Jesus uses καταφιλέω of the father welcoming home the prodigal son. In Acts 20:37, Luke again uses the word to describe what happened when Paul departed from Miletus after saying farewell to the Ephesian elders. Paul is facing grave danger as he returns to Jerusalem, and many of his friends think they will never see him again. This is no peck on the cheek. Strong emotions always accompany this kind of “kiss.”

Old Testament Usage

The use of this word in the Septuagint (LXX) is no different. It describes the affection Laban showed his grandchildren when Jacob departed (Genesis 31:28, 32:1). It also describes Joseph’s reunion with his brothers in Egypt (Genesis 45:15). Naomi parted with Orpah with this kind of kiss, and the bond was so strong that Ruth insisted on returning to Bethlehem with Naomi (Ruth 1:9, 14). The word describes David’s friendship with Jonathan as well (1 Samuel 20:41). But lest I be misunderstood or misinterpreted, there is absolutely no sexual connotation in these farewell “kisses.” They reveal the very deep bond of friendship that the people experienced.

Judas’s Kiss: What It Means

So what does this all mean for Judas’s kiss? The fact that Matthew and Mark use καταφιλέω to describe Judas’s betrayal kiss reveals a couple things in my mind. First, Judas seems to have genuinely loved Jesus. I don’t think it’s fair to suggest he wasn’t genuine about the show of affection, especially given the desperation of his remorse after the fact. Second, because of that love, I have to wonder if Judas was trying to force Jesus’s hand by having him arrested. Judas wanted as much as anyone to throw off Roman rule, but Judas apparently didn’t like where things were headed. I think it is within the realm of reason to suggest that Judas thought by having Jesus arrested, Jesus’s followers would rise up rebellion against Rome. Or perhaps he even thought that Jesus would make a mighty show of divine power to overthrow Rome.

His actions do not strike me as those of a man who had a traitorous heart from the beginning. Rather they seem to be desperate measures by a disillusioned man who was trying to make one last attempt to have things go his way. When he failed miserably and realized he had condemned his friend to death rather initiating a new world order, he killed himself in an ultimate act of desperation.

Conclusion

How many times do you and I get disillusioned about the way God is working in our lives? I know I have done my share of complaining to God that he’s not doing things the way I think he should be doing them. Then in desperation, I do something in an attempt to force God’s hand and realize after the fact how foolish I really was. I need to work on developing that deep and abiding trust in God that makes me want to melt into his καταφιλέω affection for me, just as the prodigal experienced when he returned home.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

February 12, 2012

Fruit (καρπός)

Filed under: 1 Corinthians,Biblical Studies,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament — Scott Stocking @ 6:38 pm

From the “Word of the Week” Files

Fruit is a common metaphor (word picture) in the NT. Occasionally biblical authors use the word in its literal sense, but more often than not it has spiritual significance. One of John the Baptizer’s warnings to the religious leaders was, “Produce fruit (καρπός) worthy of repentance” (Matt 3:8, my translation). Jesus uses this concept in the sermon on the mount (Matt 7:15–20) to refer to the deeds of the false prophets. In Gal 5:22–23, Paul describes the “fruit of the Spirit,” which is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” (Note here that “fruit” is singular in the Greek.)

In many occurrences of the word, there is a direct or implied contrast with the old way of life. In other words, fruit has to do with how you allow Christ to live in you. In the three passages cited above, fruit describes the result of a life changed by Christ. Fruit is about integrity more than anything else. Do people see Christ when they look at you? Do they understand that your life is a reflection of the workmanship of God, or are you working in your own strength to appease God?

The Scriptures say “God made it grow” (1 Cor 3:6). You can’t take credit for spiritual fruit; if you could, it wouldn’t be spiritual. This is not to deny the value of self-control and discipline, however. The point I am making is that it is one thing for an alcoholic to say he has not touched a bottle for five years, but quite another thing to say that Christ-in-you has crucified that old desire and replaced it with a new desire for a relationship with him. Good deeds reflect a life transformed by Christ. They should not be an attempt to prove you are better than another. That’s Pharisaic legalism. Nor should they be some sort of status symbol. Each one of us has unique gifts: some are used visibly and some are used behind the scenes. All gifts in the body of Christ work toward the greater good. When we are faithful to our individual callings, God is able to work them all together to cause growth.

This brings me to my final point. Fruit is something very personal. It has to do primarily with the results of your own relationship with God. This shatters one common myth about “fruit” in the NT, that it refers to evangelistic conquests (i.e., leading someone to Christ). Matthew 3:8 and other passages never imply that a successul Christian life means you’ve got converts notched in your belt. God is the only one who can take credit for converts, because he does all the work. We are only agents of his grace. To judge yourself or someone else based on the number of converts you or the other have been “responsible” for is to put yourself in the place of God.

For those who may have trouble with this last concept, I offer this quote from the opening paragraph of the “Fruit” article in the Expositor’s Dictionary of Bible Words, published by Zondervan Press: “For Christians who are convinced that ‘being fruitful’ means winning others to Christ, the description of fruit in Scripture may come as a surprise.” Fruit is not about winning others to Christ, but about totally and completely surrendering yourself to Christ and his grace so that he can prune you and cause phenomenal growth.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

February 4, 2012

A Tale of Two Photos

Filed under: Gambling,Matthew Gospel of,Paxton Illinois,Theophany — Scott Stocking @ 12:57 pm

I think it’s time I told this story. This is going to be so much different than my other posts, because I don’t anticipate I will use much Greek or Hebrew, although I am certain I will cite some Scripture.

The story begins back in about 2001 when I lived in Paxton, Illinois. My family and I had moved there in 1999 so I could take a position with Paxton Church of Christ. For whatever reasons, the position didn’t work out: it wasn’t a good fit for me, but I still knew I needed to be in the community. About 2001, the community got wind that the Miami Native American tribe was considering suing the State of Illinois to recover land outside of Paxton so they could build a casino. The community was in an uproar, especially since the mayor at the time came out in favor of it.

After about six months, the hubbub died down, and the Miami backed off as well, because it was obvious they didn’t have a claim on the area (they do have a historic presence a little further east, however, in NE Indiana). Even to this day, one can still see “NO CasiNO” signs around Paxton. But was it all just a show on the part of the anti-casino crowd? I didn’t ask that question until six years later, when the heart of my story begins.

King Richard

In March 2007, I saw an article in the Paxton Record that a local gas station owner, Richard Schwarz, was going to open “King Richard’s Raffle House.” After all the fuss about the proposed Native American casino, I figured it would be a slam dunk to shut this thing down before it got off the ground, but in the long run, there wasn’t much public opposition to the raffle house, even though I had the private encouragement of friends. The city had to pass a special ordinance allowing the “raffle house” to operate, and it had to be in accord with State laws on raffles. Legally any organization in the city that conducted any kind of raffle had to apply and pay the fee. The raffle law was part of all the gaming laws in Illinois (casinos, bingo, slots, etc.), most of which were taxed strictly. Bingo halls, for example, had to pay 5 percent off the top of their revenues, and according to a friend who worked with the Knights of Columbus bingo hall in the area, they were watched pretty closely. As long as such places took care to follow the law, I wasn’t going to oppose them.

Figure 1: The van that delivered the bingo equipment to King Richard’s Raffle House: “The Bingo Store on Wheels”

The raffle law was really designed to cover more traditional raffles, where you buy a ticket and hope your ticket gets drawn for the prize. But when King Richard started decorating the storefront in downtown Paxton in anticipation of opening, what was plastered all over the windows? Construction paper cutouts of bingo balls, with both the letter and the number! So from the start, it was obvious this was going to be an attempt to skirt the bingo laws of Illinois. The State even had a law that said bingo equipment could only be used for actual bingo operations, but the city council didn’t seem to think that was relevant. Figure 1 shows the van that delivered the bingo board in Figure 2. (Sorry about the quality; I took the picture on a nighttime setting, and that never worked too well on my camera.) It also delivered a rather pricey electronic bingo-ball machine that drew the numbers. Players used cards that looked exactly like bingo cards without BINGO on them.

Figure 2: (Sorry about the quality) This is the bingo number board in King Richard’s Raffle House. “BINGO” was covered up on the left of the sign.

Before opening night, April 10, 2007, Schwarz must have realized what trouble he would get in if he continued to promote his operation as “bingo” (he promoted it as “glorified bingo” to the city council) so the bingo-ball cutouts mysteriously disappeared and were replaced with only numbers in circles. Same idea, but somehow he thought that city and state officials would be fooled by the missing letters. Whether they were fooled or not, neither the state nor the city did anything about it. But read on, because the raffle house issue resurfaced in Urbana a couple years later, with different results.

Crunching Numbers

The idea behind the raffle house was that a nonprofit organization could rent the building and equipment and conduct the raffle games to raise money. However, Schwarz owned the equipment and he leased the building. The state law and city ordinance were clear that the charity had to lease the building. Schwarz had to submit financial records to the city on a monthly basis, so I started tracking and crunching the numbers he had reported. What I found was disturbing, confusing, and downright deceptive. What the numbers revealed was that, at least on paper, he was charging the charity $500/night(!) for the building plus $2 per person and $50/night for the city license fee. The average gross receipt per person was over $70. The charity had to agree to a one-month gig at the place, which worked out to a minimum of twelve nights per month. Again, on paper, that works out to almost $7000 per month just to be in the building. I don’t know too many charities that would be willing to expend that kind of money for a separate, temporary building for a month to raise money.

Opening night, seventy-six people paid to play at the raffle house. Table 1 shows what the numbers looked like for that opening night (I obtained the numbers monthly through an official FOIA request presented to the city):

Date

Month

#Play

Gross recpts

prizes

discounts

Hall Exp.

Raffle Exp.

Jars Holding

Net Proceeds

Sponsor Game

4/10

 April

76

$5,831.75

$4,065.00

$0.00

$652.00

$725.75

$98.00

$291.00

 

Table 1: First-night proceeds from King Richard’s Raffle House.

So the charity (The Trimble Foundation, which Schwarz himself operated), again, on paper, spent $652 to rent a building for one night and got $291 in return. Not exactly a great return on investment. In fact, that’s a loss. The scary thing is, this was the best night for the house until July of that year as far as attendance goes. In fact, the average attendance for April was 32 persons/night the house operated. Now I keep saying “on paper,” because the books show he didn’t charge the hall expense every night. And sometimes, he never charged the full amount, especially if it meant “breaking even” on the night.

On the few nights the house did show net proceeds, there was no “sponsor game.” As you will see in Table 2, there is an amount in the sponsor game column, and that is what went to the charity that night. The sponsor game doesn’t balance with the rest of the numbers. The sponsor games appear to have been an afterthought, a way for the charity to recover some money that night. You will also notice that there is no hall expense recorded for the next three nights, but there is one for the night (April 17) when the house broke even.

Date

Month

#Play

Gross recpts

prizes

discounts

Hall Exp.

Raffle Exp.

Jars Holding

Net Proceeds

Sponsor Game

4/10

 April

76

$5,831.75

$4,065.00

$0.00

$652.00

$725.75

$98.00

$291.00

 

4/11

 April

12

$546.75

$1,370.00

$0.00

$0.00

$50.00

$22.00

($895.25)

$25.00

4/13

 April

25

$1,204.75

$1,584.00

$0.00

$0.00

$50.00

$43.00

($472.25)

$35.00

4/16

 April

18

$790.75

$1,494.00

$0.00

$0.00

$50.00

$31.00

($784.25)

$25.00

4/17

 April

34

$3,050.50

$2,237.00

$0.00

$568.00

$186.50

$59.00

$0.00

$51.00

Table 2: The first five nights of the raffle house.

Note also that on three of these nights, prize distribution exceeded gross receipts, sometimes more than double. This was a regular pattern for the house, with 31 of its 111 nights of operation in 2007 showing a prize distribution greater than gross receipts, and that is before factoring in hall rental and other expenses. Note then, that even if the charity only “paid” hall expense on those two nights, a total of $1220, they only got back $427 on those first five nights. I would have backed out in a heartbeat if I had seen those kinds of numbers. When all was said and done, after 111 nights over nine months and half a dozen charities tried to tough it out, Table 3 shows the final damage to all involved. After the Watseka flooding (supposedly many regulars were from Watseka) and the implementation of the smoking ban in Illinois in December 2007/January 2008, the raffle house was no more. Over $250,000 had come into the raffle house, and the net loss to all charities (again, on paper; I suspect Schwarz absorbed most of the loss) was around $35,000 after the sponsor game is figured in.

3579

$250,760.25

$213,149.00

$7,515.00

$33,459.50

$29,816.50

$6,163.00

($39,342.75)

$4,846.00

#Play

Gross recpts

prizes

discounts

Hall Exp.

Raffle Exp.

Jars Holding

Net Proceeds

Sponsor Game

Table 3: The final numbers.

The Battle with City Council

It was one thing to be amazed at how many charities got duped into Schwarz’s scheme. It was equally amazing (and at times amusing were it not for the seriousness of it all) how a bunch of educated men on the city council could be duped by this as well. But then again, maybe that wasn’t so amazing, because all the city had to do was collect the $50/night fee. They never really had any risk for loss. It was all money in the bank for them.

The battle with city hall began in June, after I was fired from a five-year preaching ministry because Schwarz’s charity, unbeknownst to me at the time, had contributed $1000 the previous year to the church. He threatened to withdraw his annual support, which amounted to one tenth of the church’s annual budget, if I didn’t back down. As a man of integrity, I couldn’t. I had carefully researched the Illinois gaming laws and concluded that what Schwarz was doing was wrong, and the city council was complicit, especially since they had passed the ordinance the night before the raffle house opened, and there’s supposed to be a 10-day waiting period before the ordinance is in force in Paxton.

The battle got verbal at times. I even did my best Perry Mason impression and approached the mayor to show him that the proper signatures weren’t on the licenses, which should have invalidated them (if they had been bingo licenses, the State would have invalidated them on the spot). Instead, the city council voted to silence a citizen registering a complaint, because they couldn’t handle the truth. Around October, however, the city proposed some changes to the ordinance that seemed to offer some hope that would shut down the raffle house, or at least force it to offer a legally appropriate raffle. They had adopted some of the language from the state laws that restricted certain activities at the raffle house. I was generally pleased with the progress, and I even said so publicly, but the very next day, something happened that not only caused me to keep my vigilance on the raffle house, but may very well have been a genuine theophany in my own life.

As the Weather Turns

The Tuesday (October 23, 2007) after the committee meeting where the committee announced some of these changes brought some unusual weather. The sky was a brighter blue than usual that fall afternoon, but the wind was blowing from the east, which is extremely unusual for Illinois. At first, some big fluffy clouds began to blow in, but within an hour, clouds had pretty much filled the sky. I thought it was unusual, so when I got back from picking up my daughter from Girl Scouts, I grabbed the camera and walked across the street where I could get an open shot of the sky. I took a random picture of the sky, just to get the clouds and the incredible blue that was showing on the south end of the cloud bank (Figure 3). About 15 minutes later, the kids and I were back in the house, and it got pink outside. This was about a half hour before sunset. I grabbed the camera and we jumped in the car and headed to the west end of town (only a few blocks away), again so I could get a clear picture of the sky. Figure 4 is the amazing view we had that evening of a brilliant sunset. Neither of these photos has been edited. What you see is what the camera caught.

Figure 3: A face in the clouds.

Figure 4: A fiery sunset

I didn’t think much of the first picture, Figure 3, until I was showing it around a school event a few days later, and my daughter said, “There’s a face in the cloud.” Sure enough, I looked at it, and there it was, plain as day. And it was looking right at our house! My spirit (or the Holy Spirit) had told me that Tuesday there had been more to the weather than what met the eye. Even Robert Reese, the weather man for WCIA, commented on pictures others had sent to the station that day about the unusual weather. Now I had some confirmation. To me, anyway, that was the face of God I saw. If you look a little closer at the picture, you might be able to discern half of a second face behind God’s face, one looking directly at the camera. That faces appears to be much more sinister. I decided I probably shouldn’t get too comfortable with what had happened at the council meeting on October 22, and was I ever right.

To Not or Not to Not

When the final proposed changes in the ordinance were publicized in advance of the city council meeting in November, I got them as soon as I could. As I read through the new text, I discovered something very disturbing: where the State statute and the draft version of the city ordinance said “you can not do this” (I paraphrase for simplicity), the text presented to the city council for approval said “you can do this.” In other words, the city ordinance was in direct contradiction to the State statute, a no-no in any State. I made sure I pointed this out to the city attorney and the rest of the city council, but they didn’t seem to have a problem with it. At that point, I knew it was all about the money with them. Their attitude was, why should the state bother with puny little Paxton. They did, after all, have bigger fish to fry, like a governor who was eventually convicted on federal charges and tossed out of office and skyrocketing debt.

By that point, however, it became pretty clear from the numbers that the raffle house was on its last leg. The language that didn’t agree with the state statute wouldn’t really affect organizations that wanted to run traditional raffles, something I never really had a problem with, especially since I knew the integrity of the organizations that conducted the raffles. I knew I had done my best as a citizen to point out the flaws and errors in the system, and only God could take care of the rest.

But that theophany also confirmed in my mind that I had indeed been fighting a good fight, in spite of the criticism I took from my (now ex-)wife at the time. I felt it was important to show my kids that they can stand up against society’s wrongs, even in the face of personal crisis. I felt it was important to maintain a consistent defense against organized gambling establishments in our community. I know I earned the respect of many, but one final event proved to me that I had indeed been on solid ground.

Another Raffle House

About nine months after the raffle house shut down, I received information that a relative of Schwarz’s had a similar operation in Urbana. The tip turned out to be valid, and when I submitted a FOIA request to the City of Urbana for the information about the operation, they discovered they didn’t have any of the financial reports from the owner as State statute required. They eventually sent in an undercover cop who documented that the operation was a cover for bingo, and it was shut down within a week. All I had to do for that was write a letter. Hopefully Paxton’s city council can learn something from Urbana.

Conclusion

The whole series of events with King Richard’s Raffle House may have been the beginning of the end of my marriage, but through it all, I saw visibly God’s hand (and face!) at work. I knew he was with me and watching over me, even though the road was getting extremely rocky. In retrospect, the red cloud bank moving westward may have been as much about God’s anger at the city of Paxton for what they were doing as it was a sign that I should move back to the land of Big Red. It wasn’t too long after that that I started hearing the Husker fight song in my head at all hours of the day. I knew it was inevitable I would return to Nebraska.

I said I would quote some Scripture, so here it is, Matthew 16:1–4 (NIV), and Jeremiah 4:13:

The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

Look! He advances like the clouds,
his chariots come like a whirlwind,
his horses are swifter than eagles.
Woe to us! We are ruined!

I wasn’t looking for a sign that day. Or maybe I was but just didn’t know it. The sky was red that October evening, so I guess that meant fair weather ahead. It took a while to get there, but I think I’ve found my fair weather in Omaha, in spite of the six-plus inches of snow that kept me home today to write this post. Yes, I miss my kids; they fill my thoughts every day. But I have another kind of fulfillment here, one that the provider in me had not experienced in quite some time. My prayer is that each of you will find your purpose and fulfillment in God’s kingdom.

Peace,

Scott Stocking

January 29, 2012

“I Am” Statement of Yahweh (Exodus 3–6, esp. Exodus 3:14)

Filed under: "I Am" Statements,Exodus,Hebrew,John Gospel of,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 8:33 am

As I was reading through the early chapters of Exodus last week, I was not only reminded of the “I Am” statements of Jesus in John’s gospel, but I gained some new insight into the overall application of those statements. I want to share that with you in this post.

Face to Face at the Bush

Exodus 3 is the story of Moses’s first encounter with God at the burning bush in Midian. This is also the chapter where we have the story of God revealing his personal name to Moses: יְהוָ֖ה “Yahweh” (English texts set in small caps: LORD). But the text leading up to that revelation is a story that deserves the *facepalm* of all *facepalms*! God has been preparing Moses to confront Pharaoh and deliver the Israelites from Egyptian slavery. You’d have to admit, that’s a pretty big task in those days, considering most kings and their subjects wouldn’t give a second thought about having you beheaded or drawn and quartered for merely approaching the king without invitation let alone confronting the king.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Moses approaches the burning bush when Yahweh calls out to him. He removes his sandals, because he’s on holy ground. Yahweh proceeds to identify himself and his purposes for calling Moses, while Moses does his own reverent version of a facepalm (Exodus 3:6b). Listen to what Yahweh says to Moses in Exodus 3:6–10 (NIV) and see if you detect a pattern:

I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt.

I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and

I am concerned about their suffering. So

I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land…

And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and

I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.

So now, go.

I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt.

Yahweh makes seven(!) “I” statements here about who he is and what he will do, and he affirms that he has the power to do all this through Moses. I suppose God could have done it without all the pomp and circumstance of the plagues, but then how would anyone ever know what God thinks of kings who exalt themselves to positions of deity? But here’s the facepalm moment: after God affirms that he’s going to do all this through Moses, what does Moses say?

“Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” (Exodus 3:11).

*FACEPALM!*

Evidently Moses didn’t have Verizon, because he obviously didn’t hear God the first time. The creator of the universe is speaking to Moses, giving him more information about himself than he’s ever given to any other patriarch (except perhaps Abraham), and Moses is worried about himself! Duh, Moses, it’s not about you; God just confirmed that!

Saving Face

Of course, it’s easy for us 3500 years later to look back on this story and be a little critical of Moses. The story does show his human side, and I wonder how many of us would have be willing to saddle up and head out without questioning God further on the matter. God isn’t afraid of having a conversation with us, and he’s big enough to deal with our questions and fears. He’s ever so patient with us as we muddle through life trying to figure out his will and purpose for us. But he also offers reassurance to us in the form of a promise that is repeated time and again in both the Old and New Testaments. He offered that promise to the patriarchs before Moses, and he offers it again to Moses in 3:12: “I will be with you.”

This is where the Hebrew gets very interesting, and most English translations relegate the significant issue to a footnote. The Hebrew word for “I will be” is the standard “to be” verb: הָיָה (hāyāh), but since Hebrew, like Greek, alters the spelling of its verbs based on the person and number of the verb, the form that is used in 3:12 is אֶהְיֶה (first person singular ʾehyeh; notice the letters are the same, except for the aleph א added to the front of the word). This is the exact same form that most English translations render “I AM WHO I AM” in 3:14 when God reveals his name! To their credit, most English translations have a footnote on v. 14 saying that this could be “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE,” but in my opinion, that should be the translation in the main text. The form יְהוָ֖ה “Yahweh” that is used regularly throughout the Hebrew Old Testament is probably related to the third person singular form of the verb.

Hebrew verbs don’t have tense in the same way that English verbs do. Hebrew verbs either represent completed action (perfects) or incomplete action (imperfects). The verb form Yahweh uses for his name is imperfect (ironic, I know, but that’s the grammar). What I hear Yahweh saying to Moses here is that he will do whatever it takes, he will be whatever he needs to be, to deliver the Israelites from Egypt. That is a father showing ultimate love for his children: even if it comes to destroying every last trace of the Egyptian people and culture, God will deliver his people.

Facing Up

Once was not enough, though. God has to go back through the I statements again in Exodus 6, but the Israelites were too oppressed to hear it or believe it. So God’s mighty plagues were not just to break Pharaoh’s stubborn heart, but also to show Israel that he meant business about delivering them from the Egyptians. This is emphasized in the latter plagues that have no effect on the land of Goshen where the Israelites lived.

So what does all this have to do with the “I am” statements of Jesus? What occurred to me is that Jesus was doing for his audience what Yahweh did for Moses and the Israelites. His “I am” statements affirm that he is the savior and that he can and will do whatever it takes to deliver people from sin and Satan, even to the point of dying on a cross. Jesus stood up to the religious oppressors of his day and proclaimed the good news of God’s deliverance and love for his creation.

Many of us Christ followers I’m sure have done our own facepalms when friends or family just don’t comprehend the good news. Well, you’re in good company. Be patient and keep at it, because you might have to witness a lot of pain and suffering before the deliverance finally happens. And Christ offers the same assurance to us as Yahweh did to Moses: “Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20 TNIV).

Peace,

Scott Stocking

Please check out my friend Eric Weiss’s post on this topic: http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2011/05/exodus-314-and.html.

January 23, 2012

Take Heart! (θαρσέω tharseō, Matthew 9:2, 22)

Filed under: 1 Samuel,Courage,Faith, Faithfulness,Greek,Matthew Gospel of,New Testament,Old Testament — Scott Stocking @ 8:50 pm

(Note: All Greek words are linked to www.blueletterbible.com.)

As I begin my fiftieth trip around the sun this year, I’ve determined to make several difficult choices that quite frankly have me scared and stressed. I took our congregation’s “401” class last week on spiritual maturity, which emphasizes acting out of love and faith, only to be confronted with the fact that the first major decision I made in 2012 was one out of sheer desperation, fear, and resignation. I started taking Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace University this week at our church, which means I’m committed on Sunday afternoons for the next 12 weeks, but the opening session gave me a little hope. Personal relationships are looking up as well, and things at work are on a more or less even keel. In addition, I hope to be able to go see my kids a little more often this year. Still, that first difficult decision overshadows the positives I am anticipating.

Courage!

So when I saw Jesus’s encouragement Θάρσει (“Take heart!”) twice in Matthew 9 the other day, I had to sit up and take notice. Matthew 9 comes in the heart of Jesus dealing with many who come to him or are brought to him for healing. Jesus, of course, meets their physical needs, but he is ever mindful of their spiritual needs as well. In Matthew 9:2, Jesus declares that the paralyzed man’s sins are forgiven, which incites the teachers of the law to accuse him of blasphemy. Unfazed, Jesus proceeds to demonstrate he has the power to forgive sins by healing the paralyzed man. After the woman who suffered from a bleeding disease for 12 years touched Jesus’s garment, she was healed and greeted with the same word of encouragement.

The word is found five other times in the New Testament. Six occurrences are in the Gospels, and one is in Acts. Two of the occurrences are found in story of Jesus walking on the sea (Matthew 14:27, Mark 6:50) when the disciples are so terrified in the storm that they think Jesus is a ghost. John begins a major section of his Gospel with the phrase: “Do no let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me” (14:1 NIV). John teaches in chapters 14–16 on the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the troubles that his followers would face in the world. He ends that section with the word of encouragement: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (16:33 NIV). The two other occurrences of the word are found in Mark 10:49 and Acts 23:11.

Compassion

But that word by itself was only the tip of the iceberg that day as I was reading Matthew 9. When I got to the end of the chapter, verse 36 really hit home, because I felt like part of the crowd: “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion [σπλαγχνίζομαι] on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (NIV). The words for “have compassion” and “compassion” are two of my favorite Greek words, not only because you have to expel about a pint of spit to say them, but because they are so descriptive of the literal meaning: “bowels.” Yes, that is where the phrase “bowels of compassion” originates. Compassion comes from the gut in the Hebrew worldview, much deeper than the heart.

But leaving that word aside, the thing that really struck me was the condition of the people who came to Jesus: “harassed,” “helpless,” “shepherdless.” I’ve not forgotten I have a shepherd, even when I may wander off at times, but I’ve certainly felt the first two in the last few years. The shepherd has guided me through those times, but I often have to wonder what I’m supposed to be learning in the school of hard knocks.

The fact that I have a shepherd was reinforced even more when I came across an OT passage last week as a friend and I were reading through Six Battles Every Man Must Win by Bill Perkins, where he reminds us of the story of another shepherd, David. Before David secured his place on Israel’s throne, he was a fugitive running from Saul. During that time, however, he was not alone. Those who would become David’s “mighty men” gathered around him early in his fugitive life: “All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their commander. About four hundred men were with him” (1 Samuel 22:2). That sounds very much like the people who were gathering around Jesus in Matthew 9. And it sounds very much like my life currently. My life-résumé is a pretty good match for the “qualifications” of a mighty man.

Contentment

I know I don’t have the strength to dig myself out of my own problems. Some days, I wear my weakness on my sleeve, but only because I know that it is only through my weakness that Christ can perfect his power (2 Corinthians 12:9). I need my shepherd, Jesus, to guide me through. The path is mountainous and treacherous at times, but I know he’s got my back.

I remember going on a horseback ride as a teen through Chadron State Park in NW Nebraska. We had about 15 people riding single file along the trail, and we were going along a high ridge with a 45 degree slope that dropped about a thousand feet to my right (at least, it seemed that steep and deep). My horse decided to take his own route, and instead of staying on the main path, he moved to the right a bit and went between a tree and the slope. The path between the tree and the slope was no wider than the horse, but when I started to panic a bit, my dad reassured me that the horse knew what he was doing. It was only a short little detour, only ten feet or so, but I had to duck a bit to avoid the lower branches of the tree. The horse was sure footed though and got me safely back on the path.

That detour is a microcosm of what I’ve experienced in the past few years, poised precariously on the brink of disaster. But God has seen me through it, and for that, I am grateful. The road ahead still has its challenges, but I can be content knowing that my Savior holds me in the palm of his hand and will put me on the straight path in his own timing.

Conclusion

So my word to you is the same as Christ’s to the paralytic and the bleeding woman: Take heart! Know that his promise that he would never leave us nor forsake us holds true, even when we have trouble seeing the end result.

Peace!

Scott Stocking

January 21, 2012

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Guide for Explaining John 1:1 Correctly

Filed under: Biblical Studies,Greek,John Gospel of — Scott Stocking @ 1:50 pm
Tags: , , ,

Reposting this because I’m teaching a class on Jehovah’s Witnesses Sunday, January 22, at church.

Scott Stocking's avatarSunday Morning Greek Blog

qrcode
Download the link to this post for your smart phone or smart pad so you can have a ready reference for Jehovah’s Witness encounters.

I have sensed the anticipation of the masses (in my mind, the 15–20 of you who read this blog each week are the masses; humor me pleaseJ): “The Jehovah’s Witnesses have been beating down my door. I’m tired of debating John 1:1 with them. I never get anywhere. When will I get some help from the Sunday Morning Greek Blog?” (Again, humor me please.) Well help has finally arrived!

Before I begin, I want to give credit where credit is due. Daniel Wallace is the “go-to guy” for us Greek scholars when it comes to issues of Greek grammar. Some of what I will write today comes from his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, published by Zondervan and also available for the Logos…

View original post 1,418 more words

January 13, 2012

Who Is, Who Was, and Who Is Coming (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 16:15; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11)

Filed under: 1 Thessalonians,2 Peter,Biblical Studies,Ecclesiology,Eschatology,Greek,New Testament,Revelation — Scott Stocking @ 7:41 pm

I’m feeling kind of rusty. It’s been over three weeks since I’ve posted anything, but then, in those three weeks, I had my kids for the holidays, the holidays themselves, three repairs on the car, two round trips to Illinois, my dad and step mom both in the hospital at different times, and a partridge in a pear tree. Life has been pretty hectic. Things are getting back to normal, though, and after getting reacquainted with my Civilization IV game, I’m ready to get back in the blogosphere.

For those of you who aren’t on my Facebook friends’ list, I did in fact accomplish my 2011 resolution: I read through the entire Greek New Testament. I realized I haven’t written anything about Revelation yet, so I think I’ll take the next few posts to do that. In the meantime, I’ve started reading through the Greek NT again, so I will continue to post on other topics as well in the coming year.

There’s No Future Like the Present

One of the things that struck me almost right off the bat in Revelation was the Greek version of the phrase “Who is, who was, and who is to come” (NIV; ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος). At first glance in the English translation, this looks like a present tense verb (“Who is”), a past tense verb (“Who was”; 4:8 switches the order of the first two), and a future tense verb (“Who is to come”). But ὁ ἐρχόμενος is not future tense! It is actually a present tense participle, so it should imply the continuous aspect, that is, the action is currently underway. While “who is to come” does signal Jesus is coming, it doesn’t reflect the emphasis of the present tense in Greek. A better translation might be “Who is already coming.” Yes, he’s on his way, and he’ll be here soon.

But this isn’t the only place the NIV and many other versions imply a future tense that isn’t there in the Greek. We find the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 5:2, where Paul says, “You know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” The verb there is ἔρχεται., present tense. So the early church didn’t look at as Jesus’s second coming as something in the distant future. They thought of it as something under way even as they wrote and read the New Testament.

When Is He Coming?

Now I can hear the anticipation out there: What is Scott’s millennial view? Well, I won’t beat around the bush. I lean toward being a post-tribulation amillennialist. (I hope WordPress’s server is ready for the barrage of comments I’ll receive on that little revelation!) When Jesus died and rose again, he established his kingdom, the body of Christ, on earth through the preaching of Peter and subsequent missionary activity of his disciples and other followers. The church represents the “millennial” (I take the term to be figurative for “a long time”) reign of Christ. I also believe we are in the time when Satan has been let loose to deceive the nations and the elect, so I think we’re beyond the millennial period now and waiting for the final consummation of history in Jesus’s triumphant return.

I can hear some of you shouting at your computers and iPhones: “But what about the rapture? Isn’t that supposed to happen before Satan is let loose?” First of all, let me say that the word “rapture” (or any Greek equivalent) is never found in the New Testament. The events described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 are commonly referred to as the “rapture.” But these events I think could more appropriately be called a resurrection. After all, the dead bodies are raised first in that passage. Those of us who are alive will be “snatched up” (ἁρπάζω) as a resurrection from our mortal flesh. This is the same word John uses to describe what happens to the child born of the woman in Revelation 12:5. It’s also the word used in Matthew 12:29 (NIV): “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.”

This makes a nice segue to when I think Jesus’s second coming will happen. The watershed verse in my mind that tells me when Jesus is returning is Revelation 16:15: “Look, I am coming like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to walk around naked and have others see his shame.” First of all, we have another present tense form of the word for “come,” so that aspect is reemphasized. Second, and more convincing in my mind, is the language of coming like a thief. I think this ties directly in with passages like Matthew 24:43, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 3:3. No less than four different New Testament authors (Matthew, Paul, Peter, John) use this imagery of Christ’s return. But also notice when Jesus says he is coming: just before the final bowl of wrath is poured out. Since Paul connects the “coming” with the “snatching” in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, I have to believe that the body of Christ will remain on the earth during the entire tribulation of scrolls, trumpets, and bowls.

If You’ve Got Ears, Listen Up!

Don’t think you’re going to avoid the tribulation just because you’re a Christ follower. I don’t think God has ever let believers off that easily. Noah had to endure a flood; Abraham nearly sacrificed his own son; Moses spent 80 years in the wilderness; David spent years running from Saul. We Christ followers are going to experience (and may already be experiencing) the tribulation. Otherwise, why would Paul and Peter put such emphasis on being found holy, spotless, and blameless (Ephesians 1:4; 2 Peter 3:11–14)? Why the emphasis on “being ready” if we’re not going to live through it (or die in it!)?

Conclusion

Christ is on his way. We don’t know when: no one does. It may be 2012; it may not be until 2512. But we know he is true to his word, patient with the lost, and that he will come at the appointed time to win the final battle over sin and evil. Eternity with him will be glorious to say the least. I’m looking forward to it. I hope you are too.

Peace

Scott Stocking

December 14, 2011

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8) and the Reliability of Modern Greek Texts

Filed under: 1 John,Authorship,Biblical Studies,Greek,New Testament,Textual Criticism — Scott Stocking @ 7:29 pm

Note: Some of the information herein is taken from Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2nd ed., New York: Oxford, 1968) pp. 95–106, 209–10.

Introduction

One of the most fascinating things to me about the history of the transmission of the New Testament is the diligent scientific method developed by scholars to judge not only the quality of a particular manuscript (MS, plural MSS), but also to trace the historical influences on and predecessors to a MS. With over 5000 MSS of the Greek NT (in whole or in part), it was inevitable that scholars would develop a system for classifying and dating them. The process is called textual criticism, but don’t be turned off by the word criticism. Don’t think of this as negative assessment (e.g. “Her criticism was insulting”), but as scholarly judgment (e.g., “Her initial critique provided valuable insight”).

The modern Greek texts like the United Bible Society’s 4th edition and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition are sometimes called critical texts, because they weigh the value and quality of all MSS and make a judgment when MSS conflict about what the original text was. When MSS have different text in the same chapter and verse, these differences are called variants, or variant readings, (sometimes abbreviated v.l. for Latin varia lectio), or spurious. The science is not exact (there are four levels of certainty with which they weigh variants), but we can be fairly certain that modern critical texts are extremely accurate descendants of the autographs, the versions originally penned by the biblical authors.

The Johannine Comma

One familiar passage that exemplifies the importance of textual criticism is 1 John 5:7–8, known also as the Johannine Comma or Comma Johanneum. If you grew up reading the King James Version (or its various successors), you may know the passage as:

7 For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (1769 Authorized Version, italics mine).

Stephens 1551 version of the Greek text, the primary text of the 1611 King James and a predecessor to the Elzevir (official) textus
receptus of 1633 (more about that later), has the following Greek text (italics mine):

7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες [εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη]
το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

But most modern English translation reject the outright statement of the trinity here, because there are no early Greek MSS (sometimes called witnesses) that have the phrase represented in brackets and italics. In fact, the earliest witness to the spurious passage is not even a biblical text. It is found in a fourth-century treatise, and it is believed to have been a commentary on the shorter passage, by way of analogy, that somehow made its way into the text. The earliest biblical text inclusion of the passage is an eighth-century copy of the Latin Vulgate, that is, it’s not even Greek.

When Erasmus was preparing his Greek text in the early sixteenth century, which would eventually lay the foundation for the Stephens text, he was not going to include the variant reading in 1 John 5:7–8 (and didn’t in his first two editions), because he could find no Greek texts that had the reading. However, according to the history Metzger relates, Erasmus promised to include the passage if a Greek text could be found that had the variant reading. Sure enough, one was “produced” for him, but Erasmus suspected it was a forged copy. (In fact, no Greek text prior to the fourteenth century has the variant.) True to his word, he included the variant passage, but with numerous footnotes and disclaimers questioning the authenticity of the passage. Nonetheless, it survived into the Stephens text and the textus receptus, and it was included in most Greek texts up to the late 19th century until modern-day critical texts began to gain prominence. Even though the stewards of the King James tradition know the passage is not original, they still to this day include the words in the main text in the New King James Version.

How Do Scholars Decide which Variant Reading Is the Best?

I may have mentioned the premises for textual criticism before in my blog, but they bear repeating, especially for my new blog readers. Scholars look at two types of evidence when examining the quality and accuracy of a MS—external and internal.

External Evidence

One piece of external evidence includes the date of the MS and the style of writing it uses. MSS that use lower case letters (minuscules) are thought to be more reliable than those that use all capital letters (uncials), even if the latter is older. MSS are also classified by geographical distribution. Without going into too much detail, there are three main “families” of MSS based on this distribution: Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. The Alexandrian family of MSS is generally considered to be the most reliable, and includes the fourth-century Aleph (א) text discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai and the fourth-century Vaticanus (B) text.

One final piece of external evidence is that the relationships of the MSS to one another can often be traced as well. Some scholars count the number of variant readings and simply select the reading with the most “votes” among the witnesses. This results in what some call the “Majority Text.” The problem with this is that later MSS tend to be more common, and they are copies of copies. Consider the following analogy. Which would you consider more accurate: a handwritten reproduction of the Declaration of Independence by someone for whom English is a first language, or twenty copies made by those for whom English is not their first language who only hear the Declaration of Independence and write down what they hear? That is essentially the difference between how ancient scrolls were copied. Some were reproduced by careful editors, while others were mass produced by those who only knew the correspondence of sounds to letters. In the latter case, often only one copy of the text was available to read, so there was not much double-checking of the scribes’ work.

With respect to the Johannine Comma, the external evidence is pretty clear that the passage was never part of the original text penned by the apostle. But internal evidence is also weighed in deciding on the authenticity of a variant, so I turn now to that.

Internal Evidence

The evaluation of internal evidence takes two forms, that which relates to the words on the page (transcriptional) and that which relates to the broader contexts in which the text is found (intrinsic). The latter concern, context, is something that every Bible college student learns early on. Those of us who teach hermeneutics often joke with our students that if we call on them in their lifestyle-induced, classroom slumber to answer a question, they have a 50 percent chance of being right if they answer “Context!” In addition to the immediate context of the passage and the larger context of the book or the author’s collection of writings, historical considerations such as the Aramaic background of Jesus’ teaching and the influence of the Christian community on the transmission of the text play a role in the decision to accept or reject a variant.

Transcriptional considerations can be just as tricky, especially when some seem on the surface to contradict each other. Scribes had a tendency to simplify difficult passages by adding or changing words, so on the one hand, the most difficult reading of a passage is preferred as the original, while on the other hand, the shorter passage is preferred on the assumption that the longer passage contains more explanation. Especially relevant to the Gospels is another tendency of the scribe to consciously or unconsciously bring parallel passages into harmony. The scribe may be familiar with Luke’s version of a parable, so when he comes to that parable in Matthew, he assumes it needs to be corrected, so he “fixes” the text. But this involves much speculation, so the passage that has a greater verbal difference with parallels is preferred. Occasionally, a scribe may have inadvertently skipped a line based on seeing similar words or endings in successive lines of a Greek text. If you’re a wordsmith, this phenomenon is called homoioteleuton (also homeoteleuton, lit. “similar ending”) or parablepsis (lit. “see alongside”). Homoioarchton happens when text is skipped because of words with similar beginnings. We’ve all done those things when reading, so it shouldn’t surprise us that it happened with ancient texts.

Again, returning to the Johannine Comma, we see that the shorter passage is indeed preferred, and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the longer variant was indeed an attempt by a scribe to explain or allegorize a passage that was, perhaps, a little more difficult to comprehend. One final note: if you look at a copy of a United Bible Society Greek NT, you will see that the critical apparatus (essentially the catalog of where all the variants are found) weighs the certainty with which the Greek NT committee felt they had restored the original text. The shorter reading of 1 John 5:7–8 gets an A, because the committee was certain the original text had been restored. By contrast, the choice between “weigh anchor” (περιελόντες) and “circle around” (περιελθόντες) in Acts 28:13, a difference of one letter, gets the worst grade, D.

Conclusion

And so concludes my brief foray into the world of textual criticism. I hope you found it fascinating to discover that scholars have taken great care throughout history to maintain the integrity of God’s word, especially the New Testament. Talking about how the Jews preserved the Hebrew text is another blog post of its own.

I started in Revelation this week, so I’m in the home stretch of finishing up my read-through of the Greek NT. I’m toying with reading through the Hebrew Bible, but I may have to give myself three years to do that, and I’m not sure that would be the most profitable for me. I have been boning up on my Hebrew vocabulary, so it’s still a possibility, but I might return to my first-year Hebrew textbook and read through Esther to refresh and sharpen my Hebrew before tackling the whole OT. My other idea is to read through the Greek NT again, focusing a little more on vocabulary development personally and writing on topics I didn’t cover this year.

As always, if you have a topic you’d like to see me cover, don’t hesitate to ask. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you. Peace on earth and good will to all humanity.

Scott Stocking

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Website Powered by WordPress.com.