Ideally, hermeneutics should be practiced on the autographs of Scripture- the original documents penned by the various biblical writers. However, since none of these exists, the next best choice is to read and interpret the modern critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts: the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) for the OT and the Nestle-Aland (26th edition) or United Bible Societies’
(3d edition) Gree& New Testament (GNT). These usually reflect the best recon- structions that scholarship has so far produced of what those autographs most likely contained. But many Bible interpreters do not have the language skills to read these documents either, so they must rely on translations of Scripture into their native tongue. But how does one choose among the many translations that are available?
Two factors should be considered. First, to what extent does a given translation utilize the most reliable findings of modern textual criticism reflected in works like the BHS or GNT? Second, what kind of translation is it? Is it highly literal, highly paraphrastic, or somewhere in-between? To help the student answer these two ques- tions we will discuss several pertinent issues.
Textual
Criticism
Since this is not a manual on exegesis (interpreting the Bible in its original languages), we will discuss textual criticism only briefly.56 Much of the work of tex- tual critics involves tedious and painstaking comparison of dozens of ancient OT manuscripts and versions, and hundreds (thousands if one includes small fi-agments) of portions of Greek NT texts from the early centuries of the Christian era. The vast majority of the differences between the manuscripts stem from the mechanics of copying by hand the contents of a written document. A brief introduction to that process will enable readers to understand why manuscripts were not always copied perfectly.
Ancient writing on scrolls and codices (manuscripts in book form) did not look much like print in modem books. In the oldest manuscripts words were written in
%Helpful introductory guides include P. K. McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Tat of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament:
f+om the Sqtuugint to Qumran (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); J. H. Greenlee, Introduction to New ktament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964); and P. W. Comfort, i%e Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). More technical but more thorough
studies are E. Wiirthwein, The Text ofthe Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); and K. Aland :rnd B. Aland, 7he Text of the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leiden: Brill, 1989).
/u ~mruauctma to mumaL lnterpretataon
capital letters with no use of lower case and no spacing between words, punctuation, hyphenation, paragraphing, section headings, or any of the other devices of mod-
ern writing. Also, in the case of Hebrew and Aramaic, generally just consonants were written. The vowels (later represented by symbols underneath the consonants) were supplied by scribes later, centuries after the books were written and the canon was complete. To imagine what this might look like for an English reader, we might conceive of the NIV of Gen 1: l-2 as appearing:
NTHBGNNNGGDCRTDTHHVNSNDTHRTHNDTHRTHWSFRMLSS NDMPTYDRKNSSWSVRTHSRFCFTHDl’NDTHSl?RTFGDWSHVRNG VRTHWTRS.
John l:l-2 wouldn’t look quite so bad because vowels were included in Greek manuscripts:
INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWASWITHGOD ANDTHEWORDWASGODHEWASWITHGODINTHEBEGINNING.
read Naturally one wonders how anybody could read such writing. But those who these languages had learned the method from childhood, and in the case of Hebrew had learned what vowels should be added to the consonants mentally or orally. Nevertheless, modern readers do well to remember that the original Scrip- ture texts looked quite different from our own. No one dare claim inspiration for chapter and verse references (these were added in the middle ages),57 word division and punctuation (which began about the sixth century), or Hebrew vowels (final- ized in writing in about the ninth century).
Many of the differences among later biblical manuscripts, therefore, resulted from the ambiguities of the older documents, especially with respect to word divi- sion. However, the context usually clarified the correct reading. But other mechani- cal errors occurred: letters, words, or whole lines were accidentally omitted or repeated as the scribe’s eye jumped back to the wrong place in the text being cop- ied. Spelling variations or mistakes intruded, when two adjacent letters were re- versed, or when one letter was substituted for another that was similar in appearance.
But most of these errors are trivial, detectable, and correctable, and do not signifi- cantly affect the overall meaning of the larger passages in which they appear. Occa- sionally, there are interesting exceptions. For example, should 1 Thes 2:7 read “we were gentle among you” or “we were little children among y~u?“~* The two readings
“Chapter divisions were introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, at the beginning of the thirteenth century; verses, by Robert Estienne (Stephanus), in the mid-sixteenth cen- tury.
%Most modern versions adopt the former translation. For the latter see, for example, The New Testament by C. B. Williams (Chicago: Moody, 1963; repr. of 1937 ed.) and The New Testament by W.
F. Beck (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963).
‘lhe Canon and 1 ranslauons /I
in the Greek differ only by an additional n- to begin the second word: eBenEthen
@oi “we became gentle” vs. e&en&en @pioi “we became infants.“59 Is it more likely that a scribe accidentally added or omitted the n-?60
Or should Gen 49:26 read, “Your father’s blessings are greater than the bless- ings of the ancient mountainsn or u . . . greater than the blessings of my pro- genitors” (i.e., “those who conceived me”)? The phrase “the ancient mountains”
(7~ ‘117; harare” ‘ad) in Hebrew looks similar to “those who conceived me” (79 yli ;T; ho”ray ‘ad), if
one
letter (7; r) is replaced with a similar looking letter (7 ; 6) .61Obviously, textual variants in verses of great doctrinal significance introduce important ambiguities. Usually Psa 2: 12 has been seen as messianic, in keeping with the traditional rendering of the Hebrew (12-?jTtil; maSSepi-bar), as “Kiss [i.e., reverence] the Son” (NIV). But the last two letters (la; bar, reading from right to left) are not the normal Hebrew for “Son” (which is 13; bzn, as in verse 7), and the
LXX translates the command into Greek as “take hold of discipline,” which can- not be extracted from these Hebrew letters at all. Modern translators, therefore, have sometimes supposed that these six letters, along with those of the preceding two words, were at some point rather dramatically rearranged from an original
;17YlZ l%Z ?pPjl ( nafSCqti beradhyv bir’add) to the existing MT la_IIptil ;TlYlII 1kll ( tpe~iM bir’iidd naJSeqP-bar). They propose a non-messianic rendering: “Kiss his feet” ( RSV referring to God). Thus instead of “Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling, Kiss the son, * Psa 2:l l-12a then reads, “Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling kiss his feet.n62
Less complex, but equally significant, is a NT example from Lk 22:19b-20.
Did a later scribe first add, “given for you. This do in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup, after supper saying, this cup is the new covenant in my blood shed for you”? Or were these words accidentally omitted in the exemplar (an influential manuscript widely copied for a large. number of other manuscripts)?63 Examples could be multiplied. But we insist that no doctrine of Christianity rests solely on textually-disputed passages. There are numerous other Messianic psalms and proph- ecies besides Psa 2:12, and there are three other accounts of Jesus’ words at the
59Recall, originally these were written in all capitals with no spaces. They would differ only in the presence of an extra -n. Compare E~ENH~EIYHITIOI (we were gentle) with E~ENH6EIWHlllOI- (we became infants).
@The standard source for explaining the cases for and against the major textual variants in the New Testament is B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commenta y on the Greek New Testament (New York: UBS, 1971). Particularly useful is Metzger’s description of how the five-member committee that produced the UBS GNT arrived at its decisions to rank a certain reading with an {AI, IBI, ICI or {Dl level of confidence. In this particular example, the committee adopted the reading nepioi (infants) but gave it a relatively doubtful (C) rating. It is a close call. Note various translations.
610n which, see esp. J. Skinner, A Ctitical and Exegetical Commenta y on Genesis, ICC 2d ed.
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930) 532-33; and E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible (Garden City:
Doubleday, 1964) 369-70. The alternate reading lies behind the Lxx.
‘j2For details and alternative proposals, see W. L. Holladay, “A New Proposal for the Crux in Psalm II, 12,” VT28 (1978): 11@12.
63For details, see I. H. Marshall, Lust Supper and Lord’s Supper (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 36-38.
/L lntroductzon to mmcaL lnterpretatton
Last Supper, one of which very closely agrees with the wording of Luke’s disputed text (1 Cor 11:24-25).
The science of textual criticism nevertheless plays a crucial role in proper hermeneutics. All of the other methods described in this book are somewhat incon- sequential if we cannot determine with reasonable probability what the original words of the Bible actually were. The good news is that the vast majority of the Bible is textually secure.a Readers of English translations, especially of the NT, need not wonder if textual variants lurking behind every verse they read would drastically change the meaning of the passage. Estimates suggest that at least 97 percent, if not more, of the original NT can be reconstructed from the existing manuscripts beyond any measure of reasonable doubt. The percentage for the OT is lower, per- haps only about 90 percent. 65 But good editions of the various modern English translations contain footnotes that alert readers to most of the significant textual variants (as well as important alternate translations). Serious students of the Bible would be wise to obtain such editions of the Scriptures.
Even with all of this help, Christians often ask two important questions for which there are no simple answers. First, why did God in his providence not insure that an inerrant, inspired original was also inerrantly preserved? Second, how do we as Christians deal with those portions of traditional translations (like the KJV) that modern discoveries have shown were not part of the original autographs? The finst question takes on added significance in light of other religions that claim, however erroneously, that their sacred writings have been perfectly preserved (most notably the Book of Mormon and the Qu’ran/Koran). To be sure, we do not know God’s hidden motives. Perhaps he did not want us to idolize a book but to worship the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Leaving the transmission of Scriptures to fal- lible human beings parallels leaving the proclamation of those Scriptures to si&
and potentially rebellious disciples. God does not choose to override free will in either case, and he reveals and inspires only at particular moments in human his- tory. But there is a sense in which we can discern his providence in the amazing extent to which the texts have been preserved.
The second question becomes particularly acute with regard to the two long- est passages (printed in most Bibles) that almost certainly did not appear in the original manuscripts: Mk 16:9-20 (an additional account of Jesus’ resurrection) and Jn 7:53-8:ll (the story of the woman caught in adultery). The necessary ap- proach should be clear-whatever was most likely in the original texts should be accepted as inspired and normative; what was not in those texts should not be given equal status. But application proves more difficult. As noted elsewhere in this book, Jn 7:53-8:ll may be a true story, from which we can derive accurate information about Jesus’ view of the Law, even if it did not originally form part of John’s Gos- pel. On the other hand, there is almost no evidence to support Jesus ever having
“Contra the claims of religions like Mormonism or Islam that affirm the inspiration and author- ity of the OT and NT but then assert that these Scriptures have not been reliably copied at crucial points (e.g., in passages that teach the full and unique deity of Christ).
65See N. L. Geisler and W. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1968), 365-66.
said, “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16), as if baptism were necessary for salvation, or for the promise that believers may pick up snakes, drink their venom, and yet not be harmed (Mk 16:18). One unnecessarily risks suicide by treating that text as normative.1 But in both Mark and John, the textual evidence is very strong for rejecting these passages as inspired Scripture.66
Or what about verses in which the NT quotes the OT but follows the Septuagint, even though the meaning in the Greek translation does not accurately reflect the Hebrew of traditional OT manuscripts? These differences prove more difficult to assess. The traditional Hebrew versions, known as the Masoretic text (MT), date from no earlier than the A.D. 800-900s. The existing Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts go back an additional half a millennium or more. It is possible, there- fore, that at times the LXX accurately translated a Hebrew original that later be- came corrupted. Portions of OT books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) from as long ago as 200 B.C. have suggested that occasionally, though not often, this was exactly what happened. Compare, for example, Heb 1:6, which quotes a longer form of Deut 32:43 found only in the LXX and DSS.67
Aramaic Targums, which combined free translation with occasional explana- tory additions and commentary, may at times also reflect an older text. Interpreters, for example, have often wondered how to account for the end of Eph 4:8, “he gave gifts to men,* when the Hebrew of Psa 68:18 that Paul is quoting reads “you re- ceived gifts from men. ” But at least one early Targum contains an Aramaic equiva- lent to Paul’s word, so it is possible that its author reflected the intent of the original He brew.68
In other instances the NT may quote the LXX because it was the most well- known Bible to first-century Jewish readers outside Israel, even when it differed from the Hebrew, so long as the point at stake was not affected. Thus, James in Acts 15:17 quotes the LXX of Amos 9:11-12 in which the Greek, “that the rem- nant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name” is quite different from the Hebrew “so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations may hear. ” Yet James’ point can be justified from either version-when God restores Israel, Gentiles will become an integral and united part of his new chosen people along with Jews.69 Of course, not every NT use of the LXX can be explained in these ways. (For additional discussion, refer to the section on the use of the OT in the NT).
Perhaps the most important hermeneutical principle to learn f?om textual criticism is that one must not derive theological or ethical principles solely fi-om passages that
66The UBS GNT gives an {Al rating in each instance.
670n which, see esp. J. de Waard, A Comparative Study of the Old Testament Text in the Dead Sea Scroll and in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1!965), 13-16.
@Cf. A S. Wood, “Ephesians” in witor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 ed. E E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 57; R. Schnackenburg, ne Epktle to the Epbesians (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 176-77; and A. T. Lincoln, Epbesians, WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 199@, 242-44.
@This is the approach frequently taken and well defended by D. L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament C’hrktology, JSNTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987).
/4 mrroawctton to mmcab lnterpretatzon
are textually uncertain. When significant textual variants appear in a given passage, the sensible Bible reader will draw interpretations and applications that can be de- fended from whatever version of the text one adopts. So, too, syntheses of biblical doctrine and practice should always be based on textually certain passages.