Augh! Biblical Hopscotch!!

Rant On!

I realize it’s a very difficult thing to take a biblical passage and make a Godly, useful, comprehensible sermon or Sunday School lesson of it that will only take up thirty, forty-five minutes.  I understand that many people will not want to examine every alef or omega of a bible verse like me. I know the Gospel writers shaped their material for a purpose, so there is good precedent for us shaping sermons or bible lessons.

But for the love of Mike, do you have to destroy story and context by skipping whole sections of Scripture to make your point in a limited time?

A cosmic mind put this Book of books together. Umpteen generations of listeners and readers have affirmed the power and wisdom of the narrative.  There are libraries full of commentaries to show that there are important things to say about every line.  Yet for time’s sake you guys and gals hit the high points, and apparently think that’s not a subtly destructive thing.

I know everyone is supposed to read the background passages each week. And I know you know as I do a goodly number of our Sunday School attendees will not even prepare themselves by reading a maximum of  three chapters of the Bible in a week. It’s a sin, no doubt. But inevitably you contribute to it by skipping verse after verse in your lessons. It cannot help but convey the impression that some parts of the Bible are less important than others, or not important at all. This grows until there are whole books people ignore (Leviticus and Revelation, anyone?).

Authors have intentions, and they don’t do things without purpose. When you edit a work, you inevitably wreck those intentions. Wrecking the Great Author’s intentions is a scary thing to do.

I have another beef with this skipping around. It’s just as inevitable that you open yourself up to the charge of scripture twisting. Of creating your own little proof text to make a point that isn’t there, rather like those glowing movie reviews you see on posters that are actually taken from terribly negative reviews.  People today are unreasonably suspicious of people’s intentions to start with. You don’t dare feed their suspicions if you want to win them over.

I know it’s easy for me to throw rocks, and I have no easy answer. It will take Lifeway’s Explore the Bible eight years of Sundays to go through the whole Protestant Bible, even in this abbreviated form. But you can’t tell people how important Scripture reading is and then skip whole chunks, even in your chosen chapters, without making exactly the opposite impression you attempting to make.

God grant us all a renewed love of His word, which will solve this problem for us.

Rant Off! 

So I say “So” a Lot; So?

Nothing like posting thirty plus little essays on a blog to show the world your unconscious habits. I just ran down the pages of blog posts so far and realized I start too many of them with “so”.  I’ll have to watch that from now on. 

The excessively long bible notes, however, stay. I have to keep my word count up somehow, and I hate to let all that work sit idly on my hard drive.   

Why I chose the NET 1st Edition as my Preferred Bible: 1) The Background

For those who missed this in the comments section over at Nathan Stitt’s blog– all two of you–I will try to go into more depth here about how and why I primarily use the NET Bible.

First, let us look at my church situation. Our pew bible is the 1971 NASB, bought in bulk not long after it was originally published. They are for practical purposes relics, since the two pastors in the church today use the NKJV and NIV respectively, and the NASB translation itself received an update in 1995.  Our Sunday School material uses KJV and HCSB, the KJV because it is still hugely popular despite the antiquated language, and the HCSB because it a) allowed the SBC to have a text grounded in its understanding of Scripture and b) eliminated rumored massive fees for the use of NIV.

So at my church we effectively have NO standard bible, but about three commonly used translations: KJV, NKJV, and HCSB.

Second, confession time: I am a study bible addict. I will never buy a plain text bible when there is a study edition available ( I also hate DVDs without commentaries, but that’s another post). But I treat study bibles like reference books, looking for those that add some new information to my collection. Thus I don’t want three translations with NIV Study Bible notes in them, or three with Life Application notes, and so on.

(Jumping ahead: Yes, I do have the NET 1st Edition and the NET/NA27 diglot, but that is a case of a half repeat, half new volume, thanks to the NA27 side.)

More confession: I like HCSB well enough to use it regularly (as I do with the Sunday School literature) and I think it will become a standard bible in my church (local and international). But the publishers have yet to come out with a study bible edition I really care for. The Holman Illustrated Sudy Bible would more accurately be titled “Holman Illustrated Bible”, because it’s main feature is the integration of pictures, maps, and charts into the text. I find some of these inserts a little on the small side to be pleasantly viewed, but several people I know (hi Mom!) like this bible. My suspicion is it is popular among people who read their bible but do not use reference books with them, especially bible dictionaries or handbooks.

Don Carson has a line about the increasing prevalence of niche bible marketing, something along the lines of expecting to see a bible aimed at “left-handed, bicycle-riding, cafe-latte drinking, English as a second language, half-emergent, one quarter Unitarian, final quarter Southern Baptist, white males, born between the hours of 2 and 7 pm August 3, 1988 in Catholic hospitals”. Better known as half a dozen people worldwide.  For good and ill, this is a pretty accurate viewpoint.

The Apologetics Study Bible is a product of this climate. Its intended market seems to be conservative evangelicals who know little about apologetics or biblical studies. The notes and articles in this Bible will inevitably not please everyone, nor even really cover their subjects properly. It is best viewed as a sort of handy primer or quick reference. As I must say, all study bibles should be viewed.

At this moment those two are pretty much it in the study bible category for the HCSB, and neither satisfy me. They do both have one excellent quality: a font size large enough to be easily read. And while the Apologetics Study Bible hardcover edition (yes, I’m cheap!) is relatively heavy, it is slim enough and light enough (for someone used to lugging around huge study bibles) to be easily carried to church.  

So, if the HCSB is out what are my other options?

NRSV. This is the translation I went to when I started getting serious about church again in the Nineties. It has the scholarly (oh, that word!) endorsements, the most “complete” canon in English bibles, and comes in at least three noted study bible editions: Harper Collins Study Bible, Oxford Annotated Study Bible, and New Interpreters Study Bible. Though I don’t accept the “Apocrypha” as Scripture, I definitely see the need to study them for background, as well as communicating with those who do give them some form of authority.

I own a copy of the Oxford Annotated, but not the others. I didn’t see the need for three huge NRSV, and I found the Harper Collins just that much more liberal and skeptical than the Oxford when I was choosing an NRSV study bible. The NISB came out too late and was too similar to the others for me to buy it.

So why not NRSV? Because absolutely no one in my church circle uses it, and because the study notes are not something that would be useful in a mixed translations setting. What is good for my private study is not necessarily what I want to use among fellow believers.

So where does that leave me?

Tune in tomorrow, same study bible time, same study bible blog for the next manage-ably short segment:

2) The Also Rans. 

 

UPDATE 12/16/08: I really need to go back and completely redo this post for ‘09. Beg pardon, gentle readers. It was an early post before I’d gotten the hang of things. Here’s the bullets from the original comment that inspired this post:

1) NET is a functional/dynamic translation, meaning you can read it aloud without totally tripping over odd word orders, plus people can understand it fairly easily.

2) NET bears enough resemblance to NIV you can follow along in one while listening to the other fairly easily.

3) NET has all those notes that make understanding and explaining differences in multiple translations simple enough when they come up.

4) Did I mention all the notes?
5) I love the NET/NA27 diglot!

As far as study, the NET is an excellent resource for all the reasons above. Lately I’ve taken to consulting the NETS Septuagint. I use the NIV, NJPS and Robert Alter’s translation because they are in the commentaries I am consulting as we go through Genesis these last five months.

UPDATE 2: 2-4-09

Here is a thumbnail review of the NET Bible I posted in comments elsewhere:

NET Bible review:
1. Its voluminous notes make it an exceptionally useful first check volume on any scriptural question.

2. It has a bit of an identity crisis as to whom it is written for that hinders its finding a niche.

3. Its mistakes or questionable interpretations are typically high brow enough many readers won’t even notice them, alas.

4. It’s a reasonably attractive volume that is a bit heavy for many to carry regularly, but which doubles nicely as a free weight for aerobics.

I like it, but it has no beat and you can’t dance to it.

I give it a 91.

I didn’t say it was a GOOD NET Bible review….

Ah, the power of search engines

So I’m posting these long complicated Sunday School notes, mostly on the Joseph story in Genesis, along with my feeble attempts at humor, and guess what my first search hit is?

“coloring pages from the move Joseph the King of Dreams”

Boy, some kid is really disappointed out there!

Sorry!!

 

Matthew Chapters 3 and 4, Some Notes

Here is our non-biblical reference to John the Baptist, in Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2, Whiston translation: “Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God’s displeasure.”

Mat 3:14

HCSB: but John tried to stop him

KJV : but John forbade him

Greek : ho de Ioannes diekoleuen

Koluo in Greek means hinder, stop, forbid, but with dia modifying it, the meaning is more “wanted to” or “tried to” hinder, stop, or forbid. The difference in translation likely comes from almost 400 years more study of Greek since KJV 1611.

Mat 3:15

HCSB: this is the way for us

KJV:for thus it becometh us

Greek: gar (for) prepon (proper) estin (it is) emin (for us)

There has always been a question of just how far to interpret Jesus’ “us”. Some have seen it as exclusive to Jesus, but that doesn’t make much sense since it seems an answer to John the Baptist’s consternation in 3:14. A second possibility is the long-standing interpretation that “us” includes all Christians, that Jesus was speaking to the ages even in what appears a private discussion between two men. This actually leads to the discussion of just what Jesus’ baptism was for.

Early on believers in Christ found the Baptism puzzling, since John the Baptist emphasized the repentance aspect of his baptisms. Those who believed Jesus merely a man adopted by God might have read the obvious implication that Jesus was actually repenting sin, but there were many even among the non-orthodox who did not accept this idea, as testified by this quote:

“Gospel according to the Hebrews, (in Jerome, Against Pelagius III.2)–The mother of the Lord and his brothers said to him, “John the Baptist baptizes for the forgiveness of sins; let us go and be baptized by him.” But he said to them, “In what way have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, perhaps, what I have just said is a sin of ignorance.” (Burton Throckmorton, Gospel Parallels, 1992, Nelson, p.14)

Here John Broadus surveys the range of ideas about the purpose of Jesus’ baptism:

“But many theories have been presented as to the significance and propriety of our Lords baptism.
(1) Some hold that Jesus was baptized as a consecration to the office and work of Messiah. But was purification a consecration? It was sometimes preliminary to consecration, but the latter was effected by laying on the altar. And if the Messiah, the anointed, was to be consecrated by any ceremony, it would naturally have been by anointing.
(2) Others say that in baptism he was consecrated as priest. But Jesus was not literally a priest. He had no connection whatever with the priestly line, and he did not do the work of a Jewish priest. As “a priest after the order of Melchizedek” he had nothing to do with ceremonies.
(3) Many have adopted the view given already by Justin Martyr “Trypho” 88): Jesus did not come to the river as himself needing to be baptized, or needing the Spirit s descent upon him ; but just as he was born and. crucified not as needing them but for the benefit of the human race,” …. while men thought of him as a carpenter, “the Holy Spirit for the sake of mankind flew down upon him in the form of a dove,” and a voice declared him the Son of God. (So in substance Chrys.,Euthyrn). This view, as developed and expressed in modern theological phrase, is that he was baptized vicariously. (Comp. John 1:29). But what Christ did for men vicariously he did because men could not do it and that they might escape the penalty of their failure; was that in any sense true of baptism? Justin’s statement is in a general sense true, but the vicarious theory cannot be sustained. In general, we ought to beware of forcing the ideas of vicarious action and imputed righteousness upon those portions of Scripture which do not clearly present them.
(4) A recent writer (Kirtley on “Design of Baptism”) says that the chief object of the baptism of Jesus was to symbolize at the beginning the crowning.act of his.work ; that our Lord “did ‘fulfil all righteousness’, actually in his work, symbolically in his baptism”; and that he “associates his followers with himself in this matter,” saying, “In this ordinance it is fitting that I and my followers should fulfill all righteousness.” This fancy is ingenious but far-fetched, and the latter part quite baseless. The simple and natural view, for all who do not insist on carrying back the Pauline doctrine of imputed righteousness, is the one already stated. It was proper for all devout Jews to be baptized; therefore it was proper for Jesus. If one so deeply, though hitherto quietly devout, had stayed away from the ministry and baptism of the new prophet, it would have been setting a very bad example, unless explained; and explanation of his future position and work could not then be given, even if it was then entirely plain to his own mind. Notwithstanding the peculiar mission of John and Jesus, it was becoming that they should fully perform everything righteous. (So in substance, Meyer, Ewald, Bleek, Farrar, Geikie, Edersh.; Grotius already, and comp. Calvin. Davidson translates every duty. Hase,Keim, and others, regard baptism in the case of Jesus as simply a vow of devotion to the approaching Messianic reign, which is part of the truth). A somewhat similar case occurs in 17: 24 ff. Jesus there intimates that he might, as the Son of God, claim exemption from the payment of the temple contributions, but that the rulers might make his refusal an excuse for rejecting him, and so he will do as all devout Jews do, and pay it.” (Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, American Baptist Society, 1886, p.55-6)

I consider Jesus’ baptism to be his own take on baptism. If John saw baptism as a public sign turning from a previous way of life to a new, holy life, so Jesus’ baptism was a public sign of his turning from common life to his mission as messiah.

Mat. 3:16

Just a note on how Christians have always expanded on the gospel accounts. Jesus’ baptism is a classic example. From the gospel accounts’ simplicity we get Justin Martyr (130-165) noting that Jesus went under the water “a fire was kindled in the Jordan” (Dialogue with Trypho, 88). Epiphanius (310-403) said that after the voice “immediately a great light shone around the place” (Panarion Haeresies 30.8.7) Two Latin manuscripts comment “And when Jesus was being baptized a great light flashed from the water, so all who had gathered there were afraid”. All this expansion eventually lead to Ishodad of Merv’s Commentary on the Gospels (c.850), which states:

“As John was baptizing the crowds, he said, “This is the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins”, but about our Lord, according to some, he said this, “Thou art a priest for ever, in the likeness of Melchisedek” but according to others, “In the name of God, the Lord of all, Him who hath chosen Thee for a wonderful administration, I baptize Thee”; according to others, that trembling he put his hand upon His head, saying nothing, excepting, “Exaltation and glory to Him who humbled Himself so far as to be baptized by His servant.” And straightway, as the Diatessaron testifies, a great light shone, and the Jordan was surrounded by white clouds, and many troops of spiritual beings were seen singing praises in the air; and the Jordan stood still quietly from its course, its waters not being troubled, and a scent of perfumes was wafted from thence; for the Heavens were opened, for a sign that He who was being baptized was from thence, and would again return there; also, to shew that God was reconciled to the creatures.” (Ishodad of Merv, Commentaries on the Gospels, translated by Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Cambridge University Press, 1911, p.27) (other translations, Bruce Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1993, p. 8-9)

Mat. 3:17

HCSB and KJV: a voice from heaven

Greek: phone (voice) ek (from) ton (the) ouranon (heavens)

Second temple Judaism had a phenomena they called the “bat qol”, literally “daughter of a voice”. It was either a miraculous voice considered an earthly echo of someone in Heaven speaking (often after thunder) or sometimes a coincidence hearing of a bystander saying something strangely appropriate to a question under discussion. The bat qol was considered to a sort of substitute for the prophets after Malachi, though not held to be always obeyed (one famous story has the heavenly voice siding with one interpretation of the law in a debate, at which point a rabbi on the opposite side quoted “the Law is not Heaven” and the heavenly viewpoint losing out, which reputedly gave God a good laugh). Thus the New Testament voice from heaven was not a totally strange thing to Jews.

HCSB and KJV: this is

Greek: outos estin

Mark and Luke on the other hand say, “You are” su ei in Greek. The question has long been asked, “who heard the heavenly voice?”. Mark and Luke’s version seems to point to Jesus alone, with its “You are”. “This is” in Matthew seems to point to John, but earlier it says the “heavens opened for him”, meaning Jesus, so presumably he heard the voice as well. And there is longstanding tradition the whole crowd at the Baptism heard the voice, but usually the gospels point out the crowds lack of understanding of heavenly voices, so I doubt that one. Probably it is best to assume Jesus and John heard the voice.

Mat 3:17
HCSB and KJV: beloved

Greek : agapetos

It has become a common thing in lexicons and commentaries to point out that this word “beloved” is sometimes used to translate the Hebrew yehid, “only” in the Greek Old Testament, in Genesis 22:2, 22:12, Judges 11:34, and Jeremiah 6:26. This makes some plain sense, as an only child is presumably an especially beloved one.

John Nolland, in his Gospel of Matthew ( NIGTC series, Eeerdmans, 2005, p.157-8) makes a connection between “take delight in” eudokein, and “chosen”, ekletos, based on several passages in the Greek Old Testament where eudokia has the implication of choice (LXX 2 Sam 22:20, Ps 44:3, 149:4, 151:5, Is 62:4, Hab 2:4, Mal 2:17). It is all his trying to demonstrate Matthew combines Is 42:1 and Ps 2:7 in this verse in an unforced un-novel manner.

Mat 4:1, 4:3
HCSB and KJV: tempted, tempter

Greek: peirasthenai, peirazon

Peirazo can be translated both as “tempt to evil” or “test its nature”, as well as “attempt”. So here one can take this part of Jesus’ life as both as the Temptation to Evil and the Test of Jesus’ Messiahship. Just so, our two translations vary in verse seven : HCSB: Do not test the Lord your God KJV: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. The notion there being both that it is wrong for man to test God (though oddly there are some Old testament stories about just that) and that one cannot tempt God to a wrong act, nor should one dare try.

Again, the Devil is spoken of as the tempter “peirazon” in Matthew, as well as diabolos, “slanderer”, where English gets “Devil”. Mark shows its affinity to Hebrew by calling him Satan “adversary, accuser”. There is an old rabbinic tradition that says “Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death are one. The Satan stirs up the evil inclination, reduces him to sin, denounces him before God, and then punishes him with death.” (Baba Bathra 16a, translation S.T. Lachs, _A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, Ktav, 1987, p.52)

Traditional ways the Temptation has been interpreted include:

1) Jesus recapitulating Israel’s 40 years in the Wilderness

2) Jesus setting a perfect example for all believers

3) Jesus defining the aims of his Messiahship:

a) 1st temptation- be Messiah with ease, without suffering

b) 2nd temptation- be Messiah the miracle man, the sort of Messiah Jews as a whole expected.

c) 3rd temptation- be Messiah the conqueror king, the worldy messiah

4) Jesus being tested for role in God’s plan like Old Testament heroes. Jewish tradition says only three men ever had no proper with the evil inclination: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

a) by conquering his evil inclination, Jesus shows himself at lesat equal to the patriarchs

b) by conquering Satan, he shows himself the Messiah who defeats Evil.

Mat 4:3, 6

HCSB and KJV: if (you are the son of God)

Greek: ei

There has been a lot of debate over the centuries over what the Devil knew and didn’t know about Jesus, and many have taken this “if” as a sign of how little evil knew. But the Greek “ei” might also be translated “since”, giving a different sense to the questions.

Mat 4:5

HCSB and KJV: pinnacle

Greek: pterugion
The Greek is actually “wing” or “fin”. As A.T. Robertson points out in his “Word Pictures in the New Testament”(1934): “the English word “pinnacle” is from the Latin pinnaculum, a diminutive of pinna (wing). “The temple” (tou hierou) here includes the whole temple area, not just the sanctuary (ho naos), the Holy Place and Most Holy Place. It is not clear what place is meant by “wing.” It may refer to Herod’s royal portico which overhung the Kedron Valley and looked down some four hundred and fifty feet, a dizzy height (Josephus, Ant. XV. xi. 5). This was on the south of the temple court. “

There may be a double temptation going on here, for in Mal 3:1 it says, “the Lord, whom you seek, shall suddenly come into His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, whom you take pleasure in”. There is a late Jewish tradition “When King Messiah reveals himself he will come and stand on the roof of the temple”, which seems to have been about, for I believe at least one of the “leaders” in Jerusalem during the fall of that city did indeed make an appearance on the temple roof.

Mat 4:6

HCSB: so that you will not

KJV: lest at any time

Greek: me pote

Me: not, never pote: at a time, when. Thus this says “never, at any time”. The quote from Ps 91: 11-12 seems to say that God protects his beloved people from all harm, which is comforting but not exactly accurate. And it certainly doesn’t reflect the climax of Jesus’ ministry on the Cross.

Mat 4:11

HCSB: began to serve

KJV: ministered

Greek: dieknoun

Diakoneo has a range of meaning according to the BDAG lexicon: act as agent, perform duties or serve, to help, carry out official duties or minister, to wait on someone at table. It is this last, serving as a waiter at a meal, that is in view here, referring back to Elijah being fed by angels.

A final note: we’ve already seen here at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry a clue as to why he did things, and did these things a particular way. Time and again Jesus’ actions are directly related to previous well-known events found in the Old Testament. It may take some searching out and thinking, but over and over we will see Jesus acting in a way to remind people of the stories and miracles of the Old Testament.

Matthew Chapters 1 and 2, Some Notes

Because our pastor is preaching thru the Gospel of Matthew on Sunday evenings, I thought this might be helpful and would also provide that “content, content, content” requirement I have for blogs.

Interesting to see how less lazy I was when I did these. Much more scholarly looking references.

The curious gaps are due to the chosen emphasis of the Sunday School literature these notes were prepared to supplement. 

Book links to come later, when I’m less lazy.

 

Matt 1:18

HCSB and KJV: birth

Greek: NA– genesis

TR– gennesis

The Greek in the Nestle Aland text behind HCSB is “genesis”, which means birth but “also means ’creation’, ‘generation’ and ‘genealogy’” (Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, ,United Bible Societies, 1994 p.7). It is the Greek title for the first book of the bible, and it has long been held that Matthew’s use of it here is a nod to a second genesis, like John’s “In the beginning”. There is also the possibility that Matthew was avoiding “gennesis”, a Greek word more specifically meaning “birth, begetting”, because Jesus’ conception was not a normal one. The Textus Receptus behind the KJV in fact uses gennesis here. Gennesis became the Greek for “The Nativity” among early Church authors, and is closer to the Greek “gennan”, “begat” used in the previous verses. Genesis is found in earlier, better manuscripts, but it is easy to understand why the scribes substituted the more specific gennesis, especially since the two words sound so alike.

Jesus Christ- is the most common reading by far in the ancient manuscripts. But the Greek version uses the definite article in front of Jesus Christ, which is unusual, and makes textual critics suspect this is not the original reading here.

Christ- is found here in some Old Latin and Syrian manuscripts. It may have been written here to conform with verse 1:17. On the other hand, Bart Ehrman, immensely popular agnostic textual critic, makes the case in his _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_that “Christ” was written here by some early Christian scribes to help refute Separationists, who contend Jesus was a man who was indwelledby the Christ, a separate divine being. This mostly proves that ancient people were no less susceptible to reading things into the text based on the smallest words than people today. (Bart Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.138-9)

 
gennesis-birth, nativity. Another B. Ehrman attempt to read the mind of long-dead scribes. Rather than a textual variant based on the common word used of Jesus’ birth, Ehrman sees the use of gennesis as a scribal attempt to combat Adoptionists (who believe God made the adopted the man Jesus as his divine son). The Adoptionists apparently were supposed to read genesis as “creation”, and take that to mean Jesus came into being at his birth, rather than being the pre-existent second Person of the Trinity.(B. Ehrman, OCS, p.75-6)

Ehrman has one other reading he discusses concerning Mat 1:25, but since it concerns only one fifth-century manuscript, I’ll spare you except to note it is Ehrman showing he is thoroughly obsessive compulsive like any good textual critic is supposed to be.

I should add that it appears that the fastest growing area of study in early Christianity is of the unorthodox Christianities- what we typically call “heresies”. It is apparently based on a 1934 book by Walter Bauer , translated into English as “Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity”. Bauer rejected the traditional version of Christian history where there was an original orthodoxy laid down by the apostles that later grew heresies, for a model of the early church as a disorganized group of competing visions of Christianity that eventually became the recognizable orthodox Christianity when Constantine empowered one Christian sect with governmental power. This view appeals to our love of underdogs and conspiracy theories, and provides scholars with a new, largely untapped source of fodder for papers, theses, and books. It also matches what Albert Schweitzer noted over a century ago, when he studied nineteenth century Jesus scholarship: everyone wants Jesus on their side, but only their own sort of Jesus.

  

HCSB: engaged

KJV: espoused

Greek: mnesteuo

Mnesteuo means betrothed, engaged. The Greek words for married, gameo, is not used here because Joseph and Mary weren’t married in the sense the Greco-Roman world understood it.

“The betrothed parties are called Arus and Arusarespectively, the state of being betrothed is called Arusin, and the act of betrothing, Kiddushin. The mode of betrothal is either by money [Kaseph], or by a written document [Shtar].

Between the betrothal and the nuptials an interval elapses, varying from a month for widows to a year for virgins. The nuptials are termed Chuppa [bridal chamber] or Nissuin [taking]. The essence of the nuptial ceremonies consists in conducting the bride from her home to that of the bridegroom, or a place representing his home. After this they are considered in all respects as husband and wife, though no conjugal intercourse has actually taken place.” (Gospel according to St. Matthew, A.J. Maas, S.J., B. Herder, 1898, p.10)

The whole marriage arrangement was a long, involved business. The first part, call it the “engagement”, was arranged when the couple were still very young children, either by their fathers alone, or with the services of a matchmaker. The second part, the betrothal, generally took place when the couple were teens, the ideal being a girl between about 12 or 13, and a boy 18 to 20 (boys were expected to start being adult when they reached puberty, around 13, so Joseph would have known something of how to behave in the wider world by time of marriage). It involved a public exchange of consent by the betrothed before witnesses, which then gave the boy legal rights over the girl, though she remained in her parents house for about a year. Part of the delay was simple economics: then as now the families had to scrap and save in order to throw the wedding banquet, which was part of the nisuin, the installation of the girl into the home of her husband. Though the angel calls Mary Joseph’s wife (“gyne” in Greek) the technical term used at betrothal stage among Jews was indeed arusah “betrothed”, “fiance”, rather than “isha”, wife.(S.T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, Ktav, 1987, p.7)

As to how strict the ban was on separation of the engaged couple, later Jewish sources say in Judea a fiance might be alone with his fiancee at least once during the betrothal, but that Galileans allowed no private meetings. It is suspected that the custom mentioned for Judea may have evolved after 70 AD, when masses of Roman soldiers occupied Judea and might molest young girls. Otherwise why would there be such a scandal implied in Mary’ pregnancy? (Raymond Brown, S.S. The Birth of the Messiah, Doubleday, 1993,p.124) It was commonly held in the ancient world that if a man and woman were alone together for more than twenty minutes, sex had occurred

HCSB and KJV: before they came together

Greek: sunelthein

This is a form of the Greek word sunerchomai, which BDAG’s lexicon defines as “1.to come together with others as a group, assemble, gather… 2. To come/go with one or more persons, travel together with someone…3. To unite in an imtimate relationship, come together in a sexual context.” This particular form, sunelthein, is found in ancient documents plainly referring to marriage. (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition University of Chicago Press, 2000 p.969-970)

The argument here has always been what effect this statement has on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, or lack thereof. Raymond Brown note in Birth of the Messiah that sunerchomai can mean “common habitation, sexual relations, or the constitution of a family…sexual relations is a very common meaning”. (Brown, BotM, p124)

One can’t make an argument about perpetual virginity here, as most people feel the intended meaning is “before the bethrothal became a full marriage”, before Joseph took Mary into his home and assumed responsibility for her.

HCSB: she was found to be with child

KJV: she was found with child

Greek:: eurethein en gastri echousa

The Greek is more a word picture than usually translated. Literally it is “she was found to be having in the stomach”. In short, she was far along enough in the pregnancy that it showed. There is a famous Italian film adaptation of Matthew’s gospel in which a happy Joseph walks down the street only to be crushed when he sees the visibly pregnant Mary stepping out of her house. That’s rather how I always pictured things happening.

Mat. 1:19

HCSB: being a righteous man

KJV: being a just man

Greek: dikaios

Dikaios means “upright, just, fair”, perhaps sometimes with the added connotation of “merciful”.

There has been argument about just how to understand Joseph’s dikaios-ness since the early church fathers. The arguments boil down to three according to Ray Brown (BotM, p126-8)

1) Kindness or mercy- Joseph didn’t want to see Mary abandoned in the world (stoning was not practiced due to the appropriation of the death penalty by the Roman occupying government), so while he could not possibly divorce her secretly (the divorce document, the get, required two witnesses) and there was no hint of getting rid of the baby, there was a practice of men divorcing wives on lesser grounds when the wives had committed adultery. This seems to falter, as Brown notes, on the angel’s statement “don’t be afraid to take Mary your wife”, which implies Joseph had something against doing so, presumably as a just or righteous man.

2) Respect or fear of God- this is based on the idea of Mary having told Joseph of the angelic announcement to her of her pregnancy, something Matthew doesn’t even hint at. It also falters on the idea of just what Joseph would think was respectful about abandoning Mary and the child through the law? Mary and the child could only be scandalized, she would likely never find another husband, and probably be turned out by her family. In truth it has always been thought that the scandal still never really was avoided based on the way Jesus is almost always called “Mary’s son” by the people of Nazareth in the gospels.

3) Obedience to the Law- this is Brown favorite, and popular among early Christians and Jewish scholars who study the New Testament. Joseph sees Mary an apparent adulteress, and can only do the proper thing by not bringing her into his house. But he also displays the merciful side in that he decides to divorce Mary with as little scandal as possible. In this case, Gabriel’s dream visit to Joseph doesn’t confirm Mary’s story, but rather tell Joseph that she has not broken the Law, because God has caused her pregnancy.

Mat. 1:19

HCSB: disgrace her publicly

KJV: make her a public example

Greek: deigmatisai

Deigmatizo is defined in BDAG (p.214) as “expose, make an example of, digrace”. It was apparently used of adultresses even in the Greco-Roman world.

  

Mat. 1:24

HCSB: he married her

KJV: took his wife unto him

Greek: Parelaben ten gunaika autou

The KJV is the more literal translation here, and less confusing, since Mary was all but his wife already. Other translations say “he took his wife to his home” (NJB), “took his wife into his home” (NAB) which expand the original text a bit but match the cultural background.

Mat. 1:25

HCSB: did not know her intimately

KJV: knew her not

Greek: kai ouk ginosken auten

“And he did not know her” is a literal translation here. Most translations aim for some delicacy here, but the GNB translates “he had no sexual relations with her”. This is a primary text in the argument over Mary’s proposed perpetual virginity, and one book I own spends some 31 pages arguing that the Greek translated “until” implies subsequent sexual relations. We won’t go there, except to note that the Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures both tended to view sex’s purpose as “for procreation not pleaure…Reverential reserve is a less likely possibility” (J.Nolland, Gospel of Matthew, Eerdmans, 2005, p.103)

Mat 1:25

HCSB: she gave birth to a son

KJV : she brought forth her first born son

Greek: prototokon

An oversight on my part, obvious in the English but curiously ignored in many Greek reference works. Those of us not taken with the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity would like “first-born” to be here, but the early manuscripts omit it, which helps explain the controversy. Except that “first-born” is present in Luke 2:7 and no one nowadays argues the Lukan text is unoriginal. In fact the manuscripts which have “first-born” in Mat 1:25 are commonly assumed to have taken it from Luke 2:7 in a typical case of harmonizing different gospel accounts.

  

Mat.2:1

HCSB & KJV: Bethlehem of Judea

Greek: Bethleem tes Ioudaias

As opposed to Bethlehem of Zebulun, a city seven miles NW of Nazareth, where skeptics claim Jesus was likely born. The actual OT quote is “Bethlehem of Judah”, but Matthew was likely using the Greek root word common to Judea and Jews/Judeans to connect verse 1 and 2.

The Herod mentioned here is Herod the Great, who reigned 37 – 4 BC. Idumenean by birth, he came from a country converted to Judaism, but he is most accurately characterized as a politician. He grandly rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple, but financed pagan temples and cities as well. He became king by appeasing Rome, and maintained his throne with lavish spending and hospitality together with famous cruel measures toward rebels and troublemakers, as well as those closer to him:

 

“In Herod’s 36 years of reign, his character was such that he killed many. Herod executed or had assassinated his wife Mariamne, and two husbands of his sister Salome. Herod had his brother-in-law drowned in the Jordan, and his mother-in-law Alexandra killed. He killed Hyrcanus, the last of the Hasmonean Dynasty. He killed many Pharisees and many noble families. The Jewish scholars Jehuda ben Saripha and Mattathias ben Margoloth were burned alive. He had his sons Alexander and Aristobulus killed. Since Herod, like most Jews, did not eat pork, this prompted the Roman Emperor to quip that he would rather be Herod’s pig than his son. Five days before Herod died, he had his son Antipater assassinated. (Three younger sons, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Philip, survived him).” (biblequery.org)

His last gesture was to to ensure mourning after his death, so he had many Jewish nobles jailed and left orders for them to be killed immediately after his death. Not surprisingly the nobles were instead freed.

Herod died after an eclipse of the moon, just before a Passover. 4 BC had such a combination, a lunar eclipse one month before Passover. If Jesus was about 30 in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Oct 27- Oct 28 BC) that would mean Jesus was born about 6 BC.

 

HCSB & KJV: Wise men

Greek: Magoi

Magi were originally Mede priests who made sacrifices by fire and interpreted dreams. They later switched to the Zoroasterian religion under the Persians, and the term became a general one over time for enchanters, astronomers, astrologers, dream interpreters and all sorts of magicians.

Described as coming “from the East”, the Magi were likely from either:

1)Persia- Daniel used magi to describe members of Persian court, and there was a strong Jewish presence there after the Exile ended.

2) Arabia/Syria- this is the earliest place quoted for the Magi’s origin among scholars. Camel trains from here dealt in gold, frankincense and myrrh, and the were also part of magic rituals such a magi might practice.

 

HCSB: arrived unexpectedly

KJV : behold, there came

Greek : idou…paregenonto

Paraginomai is defined by BDAG(p.760) as “draw near, come, arrive, be present” and “appear”. Where HCSB gets “unexpectedly” I can’t say, unless they take it from idou, “see, behold”.

Mat2:2

HCSB, KJV: star

Greek: astera

What was the famous star? In the beginning it seems a natural phenomena, but by the end of our lesson it seems supernatural, pinpointing a house in a small town. Taking the natural idea, there are several possible explanations of it:

1) a supernova- there is one “nova” mentioned as appearing for seventy days in 5/4 BC in Chinese records. Some of these can shine brighter than the moon.

2) a comet- there is record of one in 12 BC, but that seems entirely too early. Furthermore, comets are usually considered bad omens.

3) a planetary conjunction- Jupiter and Saturn passed very close in 7 BC three times- May/June, Sept/Oct, and Dec. Mars then passed by the two of them early in 6 BC. The conjunction took place in the constellation of Pisces, which was associated with the end of the world and with the Jews. Jupiter was associated with a world ruler, and Saturn with the area of Palestine. Thus one might have interpeted the conjunction as “a world ruler is born to the Jews in Palestine”. (Brown, BotM, Doubleday, 1993, p.170-3)

 

HCSB & KJV: in the east

Greek: en te anatole

Newer translations tend to translate the Greek “at its rising” (NET) “when it rose” (ESV) because current Greek reference works differentiate between the plural anatolai “east” (as in v.2:1) and the singular anatole “rising”. Not everyone agrees with the latest arguments, though so the star is “in the east” in some new translations (HCSB).