THREAD: Check this out. Something I didn't include in this article due to space limitations. In the JAAR study I argued that the ESV systematically removed "slave" language over time, likely for PR reasons.
But could it ever be strategic to INTRODUCE slave language? YEP! ⬇️ 1/6
The fact that the NT never formally condemns slavery is an apologetics problem, especially when there's so much in there about slaves obeying masters & even Christians *being masters* (1 Tim 6:2; Eph 6:9; Philemon).
But wouldn't it be so great if Paul DID condemn slavery??? 2/6
In 1 Tim 1:10, Paul lists a group of "lawbreakers" including "andrapodistes." Most literal NT translations rendered this "kidnappers" or "menstealers." But note how this has been revised in recent years. ESV & LSV go with "enslavers" & NRSV, NASB, CSB go with "slave traders." 3/6
Are these renderings improvements? "Slave traders" could work, but "enslavers" doesn't cuz (1) Paul could also be talking about folks who steal other peoples' slaves, not necessarily folks who enslave others & (2) in 1 Tim 6:2, Paul assumes Christians can own slaves. So... 4/6
...why use "enslavers"? Cuz now you can argue Paul condemns slavery!
Here's how Wayne Grudem (editor of ESV) uses this new translation ALL in books arguing against evangelical feminism (which draws parallels between gender subordination & slavery). NT: @bethallisonbarr 5/6
Translating andrapodistes as "enslavers" (bad trendering) is convenient for both apologetic and complementarian purposes because it allows folks to say (1) Paul condemns enslaving others & (2) unlike gender complementarity which is eternal, Paul clearly wanted slavery to end. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our Thesis: Evangelical subculture fosters masculine insecurity. We propose that insecurity ExtenZe to physical bodies & yes, the penis. But how to study penis insecurity? Everyone would lie.
And FWIW, this is "evangelical adherence" by denomination, but we also tested evangelical by self-identification (using Pew data) and the results were substantively the same.
In our studies we rely on survey questions to measure CN's distribution & impact among Americans. But since folks can't pass around surveys, here's a diagnostic.
TOP 10 INDICATORS YOU'RE SEEING CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM: 1/
1. US VS. THEM.
Dead giveaway. If a professing Christian clearly sees non-Christians as enemies to be defeated, controlled, or kept separate rather than SERVED, LOVED, BEFRIENDED, etc., they're thinking as CN culture warrior. The idea of dying for the unworthy is repellent. 2/
2. CULTURE VS. PERSON
When a Christian talks about the "Christianity" people need, does it sound like they're talking about a "culture" (values, morals, worldviews, behaviors) or a person (Jesus). CN isn't about folks meeting Jesus; it's about white conservative dominance. 3/
THREAD: Which Bible passage will be the next pericope adulterae, Mark 16:9-20, or Jesus sweating blood (texts most NT scholars consider late additions)?
I put my 💰 on 1 Cor 14:34-35 (where Paul says women must be silent in church).
Why? We already see ➡️ in that direction. 1/9
Folks seldom realize there's a thorny TC problem in vv. 34-35.
First, Paul's teaching about women comes out of nowhere & seems to contradict 11:5 where Paul says women WOULD speak in church. And if you remove 14:34-35, the passage flows perfectly. That screams interpolation. 2/9
TBH, the manuscript (MSS) support for vv. 34-35 is SOLID. Earliest & best MSS all have vv. 34-35 so any addition would be VERY early. BUT it's not bulletproof.
Early "Western" MSS put vv. 34-35 elsewhere & Vaticanus has markings *suggesting* the scribe doubted authenticity. 3/9
THREAD: Everyone knows Bible translations say slightly different things. But sometimes they say the EXACT OPPOSITE thing. And sometimes it's kinda important.
Example: Do Christians walk around as victorious winners IN THIS LIFE? OR do they walk as conquered losers on display? 1/
Well, look at 2nd Cor. 2:14. Paul says, "But thanks be to God who always [thriambeuo] us in Christ..." Some translate that as "triumph," while others recognize it as a reference to the Roman victory parade called a "triumph," in which both winners & losers would participate. 2/
So is Paul saying God always causes Christians to triumph? Or that God always leads them as winners in Christ's victory parade? OR is he saying God leads Christians as his conquered captives?
BIG difference. Christians are either worldly victors or losers awaiting heaven. 3/
THREAD: How prevalent is wokeness among white evangelicals (WEs)?
I know, it's a stupid question. I hate the word & there's a 99% chance if you've ever labeled someone "woke" you're an a-hole. But folks are giving sermon series denouncing wokeness so let's try to quantify it. 1/
Let's assume just for the sake of argument someone who's truly "woke" is the kind of person who favors 1) reparations; 2) tearing down Confederate statues; 3) defunding police; and 4) INSISTS on discussing racial issues.
Sound fair? Our PDES data actually has such measures. 2/
Below are 4 statements Americans could indicate agreement with. Scores are 0-4 & adding them together in a "wokeness scale" (cringe) makes a scale from 0-16. Alpha is .88 so the questions hang together. I also divide this into quartiles like @ndrewwhitehead do for CN ... 3/
Chart 2: We can compare those PDES trends above to publicly available data in the BRS with identical measures. Identical trend. The majority of WEs think the United States has special relationship with God and the federal government should declare the US a Christian nation. 2/
From a different angle, in the 2014 GSS we see the majority of white evangelicals (two-thirds of those over 50 years) think that being a Christian is "very important" to being truly American. So here the majority conflate Christian identity w/civic belonging. 3/