I want to extend my comments on translation issues to the issue of inerrancy. Most Christians, myself included, believe that the Bible is inerrant but only when applied to the original text. Since no original manuscript(s) exist human error has crept into the text because translators make mistakes, e.g., copying mistakes, interpretive errors, and bias.
EXAMPLES: Copying mistakes:
The meaning of the Hebrew word in Genesis 3:16 often translated as desire is probably a copying mistake. The Hebrew word from which it is translated is either “t’shuqatek” or “t’shuvatek”. The former means “desire” the latter means “turn to”. How do we know this? The Septuagint’s version of 3:16 used a Hebrew text from sometime before 200 BCE. The Later English translations use a much later Hebrew text, probably around 500 - 1000 CE. I make no claim as to which is correct (tho’ I have my opinion), only that two different versions exist today. Which is correct? I don’t know but translators usually accord authority to the oldest text. Using this principle then the correct version of 3:16 would be
“…in pain you shall bring forth children and you will turn to your husband…”
The error here is a copying mistake. A scribe miscopied the 5th letter. No one knows which one is correct and which one is wrong. Because we do not have the original manuscript.
Interpretive mistakes:
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea scholars were able to rapidly advance in understanding the grammar of biblical Hebrew. As it happens, Ziony Zevitt, a professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, using this new data was able to solve a grammar issue that had bedeviled translators for centuries, namely, how does biblical Hebrew express the English past perfect tense (e.g., Bob had walked through the park yesterday). When this discovery was applied to Genesis 1:2, the semantics of the this verse changed as follows:
Old Version: the earth was –
Corrected Version: the earth had been
In other words, rightly understood, Genesis 1:1-2 tells us that when God began creating, some sort of primordial substance was already in existence, but in an undefined, dark, and chaotic state.
Historical mistakes
In the first century CE the New Testament did not exist. In fact, Paul’s writings didn’t start to appear until around 50 CE - 20 years or so after Jesus’s death and resurrection. The first Gospel (Mark) appeared sometime between 60 and destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This is why Paul seldom, if ever, referred to the Gospels. Moreover, the internet didn’t exist. Publishing houses didn’t exist. Few people could read or write. This lack of technology resulted in transmission of religious consequence during this time was largely oral. The only “bible” that existed were Torah Scrolls in the synagogues and the Greek Septuagint. Paul, for example, quoted exclusively from the Septuagint and Jesus quoted exclusively from the Torah.
So, when the Jewish New Testament authors write that the biblical text was without error (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, among others) they were referring to the Old Testament. Thus, Paul’s writings were informed exclusively by the Greek translation of the Hebrew texts (the Septuagint), while the other writers (notably Mark, Matthew, and Luke) predominantly used the Hebrew texts found in the Torah scrolls in the synagogues.
Even if someone is not willing to allow that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we should be able to say that God, in his sovereign providence, communicates infallibly to his children? I’m reminded again of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, even if some are not willing to say it as strongly:
That depends on what is meant by “inerrant”. I read a great analysis a few weeks ago that showed like five different meanings of “inerrant” used by Christians, several of which are used by evangelicals. The fact is that most Christians don’t believe the definition that says that scripture is 100% correct scientifically and historically but believe that scripture is right about the message(s) God wants us to understand.
Have you got a link for this? We dealt with Dead Sea scrolls in grad school and there wasn’t anything different in terms of grammar from existing texts.
Only if you take “Septuagint” as a generic term covering all Greek versions of the Old Testament. Paul frequently deviates from the accepted text and occasionally appears to be making his own translation – there are Old Testament quotes where Paul’s version doesn’t match anything we’ve found.
Neither of those claims that the text was without error; that’s an idea stuffed into the text from outside.
The problem with the inerrancy claim is that it is the result of imposing a modern worldview on the text. Ancient people had different concepts of how to convey truth than we do, and a different concept of what made a story authoritative. Right up through the Exile and beyond the authority of a story – and thus its truth – wasn’t founded on it being scientifically and historically accurate (in fact those weren’t really concepts they held) but on the source: if a story had a divine source, then it was true. So when the inspired writer penned the Creation stories it didn’t matter if they weren’t exactly how things had happened, what mattered was that their source was God.
Zevit, Z. (2000). The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
I wouldn’t know so I’m unable to agree or disagree, but see next comment.
Some of Paul’s “mistranslations” are not entirely his fault. For example, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 correctly. Unfortunately, 15:6 is a rather egregious example of an LXX mistranslation of the underlying Hebrew.
Frankly, though, I’m not familiar enough with Paul’s understanding of Greek to agree or not agree with your claim. However, I have no reason to doubt you.
I found quite a few reviews, most of which agreed with this:
Of the two parts, the first is more successful than the second, but neither presents a compelling case for the claims that the author makes.
. . .
In sum, Zevit takes a legitimate insight into a particular Hebrew construction, extends its application to cases to which it clearly does not apply
One review noted that the particular structure doesn’t appear in Qumran texts even though Zevit references them, which is a bit puzzling since I can’t access the full monograph and thus check Zevit’s citations.
I wasn’t thinking of mistranslations, just his quotes that don’t match any extant Greek version. He also has quotes that we know are from different Greek translations that differ from the LXX.
Now this is interesting:
I’m not seeing the mistranslation. Though I was reminded of another issue reading Hebrew now: even with my reading glasses I have great difficulty making out the pointings, and I’m enough out of practice that I can no longer read Hebrew without them.
Now, I believe you are familiar with this stuff so, at the risk of putting the rest of participants in this thread to sleep, let’s get a bit technical.
First, I did not claim that scholars didn’t disagree with Zevit. Many surely do, but that’s the nature of scholarly reviews. However, the proof is in the pudding. To taste this particular pudding, let’s apply the Zevit rule to Genesis 1:1-2 since I used it in a previous note. First I’ll summarize his grammar rule and then show how it applies to Genesis 1:1-2.
Zevit argues that an anterior construction (past perfect tense in English) exists if.
The previous verb is a perfect stem.
The clause in question also exhibits a perfect stem but is fronted with the subject.
The subject of the second clause has a prefixed vav.
First, observe that the verb in 1:1, bara, is a perfect stem.
Next, note that subject and verb of 1:2, meet the second requirement, “vᵉhāʾāretz hāyṯâ”, namely that the verb hāyṯâ is fronted by its subject, vᵉhāʾāretz.
Finally, the subject contains a prefixed vav.
One final note: Zevit does not claim that that his rule identifies all anterior constructions. His claim is that if the grammatical structure of two clauses meets these three rules then the two clauses are unambiguously past perfect. I would just add that in my experience is the majority of English Bibles translate past perfect by context, simple fronting, or both.
Some NT scriptures have been originally written, especially letters. In these, the written form was a necessity because the messages could not be told personally to the receivers. Revelation may also been originally written as there are verses that speak of writing. The other scriptures were probably originally told, not written. Even the writings of Luke were records of orally told narratives although Luke wrote his gospel - a mixture of written ‘original’ text (what Luke wrote) and ‘original’ orally told narratives (what Luke was told).
As noted elsewhere, the messages were told in an oral culture. People of that time period were either illiterate or did not necessarily value written texts above the oral messages. Instead, they were good at memorizing teachings. Written texts may have been just later records of oral teachings. Some parts may have been memorized and repeated word-to-word, such as the proverbs and psalms. Apparently, the orally told narratives focused on the key messages and points, not a strict word-to-word repetition of the whole story. That could be one explanation for the minor variants in the oldest written records of the oral tradition.
During Jesus time, people valued the written texts of the Torah and other OT scriptures. Even in this case, it has been suggested that references to these scriptures were rather references to the oral teaching recorded in the written text than the written text itself. Such an idea can be found in the book ‘The lost world of scripture’.
Yes. But, to date, no original manuscripts (called autographs) have been found. The earliest NT fragments date to the 2nd century, CE. This article is quite informative - “Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus”
“In the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no New Testament books that were universally recognized. Some of Paul’s letters and the four Gospels whose authorship were attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were read publicly in certain churches. The earliest record of attempt (it was unsuccessful) at compiling the canon was made by Marcion, c. 140 AD, who accepted only a modified version of Luke and ten of Paul’s letters, while rejecting the Old Testament entirely.”
Bold of me to presume, but I think knor might be pushing back against the idea of a static autograph.
I would also add that with clear examples of some very creative exegesis on the apostle’s parts in reference to the OT, this is likely to have also been applied to the NT itself.
It’s worth noting here that a mendicant rabbi had stock teachings and would deliver them over and over, adjusting them slightly for different audiences. Thus Jesus may have worded things differently in Galilee than in Jerusalem.