Here's what James Barr has to say (p142-143 of 'Escaping from
Fundamentalism').
[writing about the evangelical claim that no textual error affects a point
of doctrine]
Now the Septuagint is a work of epoch-making importance, the first
full-scale translation of a body of works like the Old Testament to be made
on this scale and in a scope that involves languages as different as Hebrew
and Greek and cultural milieus as different as the Jewish and the
Hellenistic. But, under the circumstances, it was not surprisingly, as a
translation, a work of very mixed quality. It differed from book to book,
since different techniques of translation were used; at some places it must
have had a Hebrew text different from ours, while at others it seriously
misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. No scholar who knows the material
doubts that this is so. But this makes a difference when we consider the
New Testament. For it does not only use the Septuagint in a general way: it
often uses the exact ductus of its words as argument or proof of a
theological point.
*** MOST FASCINATING EXAMPLE}***
Take this passage:
Consequently, when he came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifices and
offerings thou hast not desired, but a BODY [emphasis added] hast thou
prepared for me.. .'
(Heb. 10.5).
The passage, which continues for another few lines, is a quotation from Ps.
40.7ff. In the Hebrew, which is translated in our English
Bibles, we find:
Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire but thou hast given me an
open EAR [emph added]... (Ps. 40.6).
The RSV margin adds: (Heb.) EARS thou hast dug for me, which is a literal
rendering of the Hebrew; the RSV has used thou hast given me an OPEN EAR ,
presumably as a rendering that gives the general meaning better while
avoiding the rather harsh diction of the Hebrew (as it appears, at least,
in English).
Now the whole point of the quotation in Hebrews is that it mentions the
preparation of a BODY for the Christ coming into the
world; the writer, at the culmination of his argument, comes back to
exactly this:
And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the BODY
of Jesus Christ once for all (Heb. 10.10).
But there was nothing about a body in the original Hebrew, nothing at all.
It is often said to be a mistranslation but it seems more likely that it
was a mere copying error in the transmission of the Greek text. The best
editions of the Septuagint have 'but EARS you prepared for me', which at
least in regard to the noun is a correct and exact rendering of the Hebrew.
The words as quoted in Hebrews came from a copying error. The word was
'EARS', Greek otia, written in uncial script (like capitals). The s at the
end of the previous word was read twice, and the ti in the middle was read
as the single letter m, producing the word SOMA 'BODY'. Thus, to sum up,
the word was 'EARS' in the Hebrew, was correctly translated into Greek as
'EARS', but in the transmission of the Greek came to be misread and then
wrongly copied as SOMA 'BODY'. This mistaken reading was then used by the
letter to the Hebrews; it was also, supported by the use of it in Hebrews,
transmitted in many manuscripts of the Greek Psalms.
Thus, even if some details of this explanation may be questioned,
there is no doubt that Hebrews was proving a point of DOCTRINE, and a point
of central importance in its argument, from a word that did not exist at
all in the Hebrew Bible and was the straightforward
product of an error in transmission. The matter was theologically
important: for it was the question whether there was in scripture
(that is, in the Old Testament) a previous reference to the clothing of
the Christ in a BODY of incarnation with sacrificial scope. This difficult
demonstration is accomplished entirely through the appeal to the verbal
form of an erroneous text. In this case, then, far from the inspiration of
scripture leading to a uniquely good preservation of the text, it is the
faulty preservation of the original inspired text that has been essential
for the production of the second inspired text.
This does not mean that there is any element of falsification in the
argument of Hebrews: it does mean that matters of doctrinal
importance have arisen from accidental or erroneous factors in the
transmission of scripture.
James Barr
[end of quotation]
http://www.errantyears.com/1997/sep97/000589.html
http://www.christis.org.uk/archive/issue46/god_breathed_scripture.php
God Breathed Scripture
...To begin with we need to consider what the passage does not say. Firstly,
there is no mention of any idea of inerrancy or infallibility of scripture.
There is no mention about whether all historical statements within scripture
are accurate. We could argue, of course, that there is an implication of the
above. After all, as the Bible is inspired by God it has to be inerrant and
infallible. This may well be the case but there is no explicit mention of
this sort of idea. In fact, it is interesting to note this in relation to
what the passage does say. Why is it important, according to 2Timothy, that
scripture is inspired? Because of its practical benefits, in teaching and
training and being used in this way to conduce righteousness. It equips the
Christian for every good work - i.e. it is ethically beneficial. To state
that scripture is "profitable" is a fairly low-key statement. Furthermore,
by taking the verse in context with 2Tim3:15 we can gain a further insight
to the mind of the writer:
from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are
able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus .
2Tim. 3:15
The idea that scripture is able to instruct is a far reach from ideas of
infallibility the complete works of everything that is to be said and done
in Christianity!
It is also of vital importance to understand the context of the verse. The
letters to Timothy and Titus are known as the 'Pastoral Epistles'. They are
concerned with matters of church order, bishops, deacons, the importance of
order . The role of scripture as the unassailable authority on faith is
simply not the subject they are talking about. Any such conclusions are
reached at only be reading the passage in isolation and out of its context.
...
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
