could be developed that would make better sense of the text than do the traditional readings.
Is it “Terror” That Motivates Mission?
The Bible translation produced by James Moffatt, first copyrighted in 1922, with final revisions in 1934, was a pioneer in the realm of new Bible versions. Well before the paraphrase approach of Phillips and the “dynamic equivalent” theories of translators in the 1970s, Moffatt abandoned the notion of word-for-word and phrase-for-phrase equivalents, and tried to restate the argument or the narrative of a text in good contemporary English, even if this meant presenting different words in different sequence or changing the parts of speech. He did not, however, mean to be producing a paraphrase by adding new thoughts to what was already in the text.
Moffatt was also innovative in that he went out of his way to be open to alternative interpretations of the texts’ actual meanings, rather than giving the traditional interpretations the benefit of the doubt. His translation of 2 Cor 5:11–15 is a good example of this kind of innovation. Moffatt presents nothing that is not rooted in the literal Greek text. Yet he gives freedom to more imagination in choosing among the varied possible literal meanings of that text. Specifically, in this context, the innovation comes from his taking more seriously a fact that all scholars recognize, but few make much of, namely that the received Greek text does not provide the pointers to interpretation which for us are the punctuation marks, in this case the question mark or interrogation point (?) and the quotation mark or inverted commas (“ ”). Sometimes nothing in the Greek text indicates where one of these belongs. This does not mean that quotations do not happen, or that questions are not written in Greek, but only that the signal for what is to be taken as a quotation or as a question must come from the reader’s understanding of the context and the flow of the words, since there is no visible mark in the manuscript text. Sometimes an interrogative particle (e.g., “how”) or a pronoun (“who”) signals a question. Sometimes doubt is signaled by the particle mē, but not always. Thus it is always grammatically possible to consider any particular segment of a Greek text as being a quotation rather than the author’s own words, or as being a question rather than an affirmation. Moffatt made use of this possibility in a way that clarified considerably the thought pattern of this text. He placed quotation marks in significant places to show what others were saying, accusations to which Paul was responding, thus:
The Constraint of the Love of Christ (5:11–15)
If I “appeal to the interest of men,” then, it is with the fear of the Lord before my mind. What I am is plain to God without disguise; plain also, I trust, to your own conscience. This is not “recommending myself to you again”; it is giving you an incentive to be proud of me, which you can use against men who are proud of externals instead of the inward reality. “I am beside myself,” am I? Well, that is between myself and God. I am “sane,” am I? Well, that is in your interests; for I am controlled by the love of Christ, convinced that as One has died for all, then all have died, and that he died for all in order to have the living live no longer for themselves but for him who died and rose for them.
The King James language says, for the first of these sections, “knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” The affirmations are all simple indicatives, each an outright statement either of what Paul himself holds (the “we,” of course, means first of all Paul) or of what is true for all Christians or all apostles.
There are two immediate reasons for not assuming that this simple indicative expression is adequate. One is that the word “fear” or “terror” in this passage would thereby be given a tone that is different from elsewhere. Nowhere else in the New Testament is the phrase “fear of the Lord” translated with the special sense of “terror.” It regularly means something much nearer to “awe,” “reverence,” or “respect” than to fright. This is a question not only on the level of word usage but also on that of meaning. It is not said generally in the New Testament that the motivation for mission is the fear of punishment, either for oneself or for the lost men and women to whom one preaches. Fear of hellfire is appealed to as a motivation of modern Western religion. It is for that reason that this meaning of the text appears to many of us to be so congenial and therefore so self-evident. This text, interpreted in this way, would however be the only proof text in the whole New Testament for the notion that the fear of perdition (either for oneself if one fails to be obedient in evangelizing, or for the hearers in case one does not win them) is the best way to state the missionary motivation. In other words, if it is equally possible to interpret this text in another way, then that entire doctrine, so questionable from the perspective of the rest of the New Testament, and yet so self-evident in Western culture, must be reevaluated.5
It is a fundamental reason for suspicion, with regard to any particular interpretation, if it states a meaning dependent on only that one text, or if we are not free to test it because of the fear that some cherished postbiblical preaching emphasis might have to be tested by the rest of Scripture.
The second question in the first sentence is the use of the word that the King James Version translates “persuade.” In modern English, “to persuade” others is generally thought of as a very good thing to do. But the verb peitho that it translates is, in the language of Paul and his critics, a term of reproach usually translated “to please.” A direct parallel is Gal 1:10: “Am I now seeking the favor of men or of God? Am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be servant of Christ.” It is obvious that, for Paul, to please God is a good thing, but to please oneself or to please other people is not. How could Paul, who in Galatians 1 defends himself against his detractors by saying that he is not pleasing men, claim the same function here in his defense? On the basis of the general meaning of that verb, a usage in which the standard meaning of peithō could be respected is to be preferred to one in which it is given an otherwise rare affirmative meaning as a synonym evangelism.
I have referred to two specific terms that make questionable the King James interpretation. I must make one further literary observation about the entire paragraph. In the context of his defending himself against criticism of his ministry, Paul repeats other accusations that have been leveled against him: that he is recommending himself (v. 12) and that he is insane (“beside himself,” v. 13). Since these next two thought units deal with reproaches addressed to Paul and his defense against them, it would certainly be in order to think of the first unit of the paragraph (v. 11) as also playing back a reproach.
This much attention to background should suffice to explain why it would be credible to interpret the passage as a series of three responses to three parallel accusations directed against Paul by the critics of his ministry. The translation I now suggest is like that of Moffatt in substance, but I present it here in a phrase-by-phrase sequence, so that its literal basis in the text and its parallel to other translations can be more easily checked. I add question marks, as well as quotation marks, to make the dialogical style still clearer.
(11) [Do you say that] I, who know what it means to fear the Lord, am “pleasing men”? I am fully transparent before God, and I hope also to be transparent before your consciences.
(12) I am not [as they say] “recommending myself again,” but only giving you a basis for rejoicing on my behalf, so that you can answer those who pride themselves on a person’s appearance rather than on the heart.
(13) Am I [as they say] “crazy”? It is for God’s sake. If on the other hand I am in my right mind, this works out for your good;
(14) for the love of Christ constrains me . . .
This translation has the advantage of leading the reader directly into the ensuing text of verse 15, but that is the point where it differs least from the King James interpretation. It also has the advantage of taking the form of three direct responses to three reproaches, roughly parallel but different in phrasing, each of them giving Paul the occasion for a different
