The Steppins Stones series I mentioned some time ago is coming along. I worked out most of week one. If you need a hint, think 1 John.
I have limited access to the blog these days, so I haven’t posted drafts as is my custom. Instead, I bring you the In Depth exercise from Week One. The In Depth exercise is for those folks repeating the course or otherwise already familiar with the content. It’s not so much busywork as a different perspective on the topic at hand.
In week one, (the homework for those that asked for it), there is some setup and orienting information about 1 John. In essence, since 1 John is a letter, understanding it requires many of the skills used to understand any letter (or longer email). The In Depth exercise provides a letter written from a father to his son that provides examples of some issues in understanding epistles in the New Testament.
This is the draft, by the way, so it needs real polish.
In Depth – Week One: Letters in the Bible
This exercise is not required, but is provided to demonstrate some of the issue you may face in reading letters or epistles in the Bible. Below is a Letter from Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield to his son. This letter is the third in a series collected by historians called, Letters to His Son on Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman.
LETTER III
LONDON, December 2, O.S. 1746.
DEAR BOY: I have not, in my present situation, time to write to you, either so much or so often as I used, while I was in a place of much more leisure and profit; but my affection for you must not be judged of by the number of my letters; and, though the one lessens, the other, I assure you, does not.
I have just now received your letter of the 25th past, N. S., and, by the former post, one from Mr. Harte; with both which I am very well pleased: with Mr. Harte’s, for the good account which he gives me of you; with yours, for the good account which you gave me of what I desired to be informed of. Pray continue to give me further information of the form of government of the country you are now in; which I hope you will know most minutely before you leave it. The inequality of the town of Lausanne seems to be very convenient in this cold weather; because going up hill and down will keep you warm. You say there is a good deal of good company; pray, are you got into it? Have you made acquaintances, and with whom? Let me know some of their names. Do you learn German yet, to read, write, and speak it?
Yesterday, I saw a letter from Monsieur Bochat to a friend of mine; which gave me the greatest pleasure that I have felt this great while; because it gives so very good an account of you. Among other things which Monsieur Bochat says to your advantage, he mentions the tender uneasiness and concern that you showed during my illness, for which (though I will say that you owe it to me) I am obliged to you: sentiments of gratitude not being universal, nor even common. As your affection for me can only proceed from your experience and conviction of my fondness for you (for to talk of natural affection is talking nonsense), the only return I desire is, what it is chiefly your interest to make me; I mean your invariable practice of virtue, and your indefatigable pursuit of knowledge. Adieu! and be persuaded that I shall love you extremely, while you deserve it; but not one moment longer.
Some parts of the letter make sense, even though this was written over 250 years ago. A father is writing his son about his stay in a town called Lausanne. He apologizes for not writing sooner. He thanks his son for writing back about the government of Lausanne. He tells his son about a complimentary letter he received from a Mr. Harte. He mentions another complimentary letter about his son that was from a friend to another friend. He then closes with an expression of his love.
However, there are some issues here that require more information. He mentions a previous letter – is that letter available? Why is he curious about the government in Lausanne? What is the father’s ‘present situation’? Why is the son in Lausanne? Who are Mr. Harte and Monsieur Bochat? What does OS and NS in the dates mean? What is ‘natural affection’? What does the last sentence mean, it seems really odd?
Some historical searching will give you all of Stanhope’s letters (covering over 17 years) including the first one that explains his interest in government. An internet search on his name reveals that in 1746, he was appointed as one of the King’s secretary of state. Other searches can reveal some of the other facts as well.
However, the question of OS and NS requires a bit more study. It wasn’t until the British Calendar Act of 1751 that Great Britian used the Gregorian calendar. Like other Protestant countries in Europe (and the colonies), England still used the Julian Calendar until this act was passed. Lord Chesterfield was writing from England, which in 1746, was still using the Julian Calendar notated as “O.S.” His son was in a place that adopted the Gregorian calendar already, so when he made reference to the date on the letter from his son, he used “N.S.” to denote the Gregorian calendar. Clear as mud? Well, folks in Arizona and parts of Indiana probably understand this concept a little better.
Imagine if emails from a friend were dated 10 days old the moment they arrived. That’s the situation that Lord Chesterfield and his son were in. Because custom was to date the letter, there was a translation issue right from the beginning.
I hope this little exercise demonstrates some of the things to keep in mind when reading epistles, or letters in the Bible.