What the Bible says anymore is often seen as 'ambiguous' and 'unknowable', and is viewed as something we simply can't grasp this side of eternity. Either that, or one gets so confused by the myriad of equally convincing possible 'interpretations' that he/she loses interest in the matter, and reverts to a distracted state of doctrinal apathy, in which he/she is occupied with something more readily ascertainable. These both belong to one of two general categories of unfortunate traps available on the market which compromise the authority, inerrancy, and/or sufficiency of Scripture, the other being the suggestion that even if we can or do understand what the Bible says, it's not really good enough -at least practically speaking. Thus, we need Christian philosophy, Christian psychology, or Christian whatever, all to help supplement the Scriptures - practically speaking.
So, let's take an example of a passage of Scripture that some might, after much frustration, helplessly categorize as a hopeless mess and abandon because of the general ambiguity surrounding the text:
"A voice is calling,
'Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.' " ~ Isaiah 40:3
So far no problem, until we come to the New Testament's quotation of this verse found in Mark 1-
"The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
'Make ready the way of the LORD,
Make His paths straight.' " ~ Mark 1:3
Now, besides the obvious differences in wordings, there is a particular and significant variation between these two verses that I want to draw your attention to: is 'the voice calling in the wilderness', or is the voice calling to 'clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness'? In other words, does the phrase "in the wilderness" govern (or refer to) where the voice is calling, as in Mark, or where the way of the Lord should be cleared, as in Isaiah? Both are in your Bibles, are they not? Both, then, are inspired, are they not? So which is right? Perhaps it's a little bit of both? Maybe Mark tweaked Isaiah a little bit to emphasize something he wanted to emphasize?
Or, one of the two is wrong.
The answer, to your comfort, is not unknowable. This is no case for agnosticism, nor evidence of a double meaning in Scripture.
So let's examine this. Notice that the primary, if not the only, thing that brings this matter to our attention is the placement of the quotation marks. Isaiah's arrangement includes the phrase 'in the wilderness' as part of the quotation, while Mark's version does not. Well, in Hebrew, we have a roughly similar concept at work as with the English quotation marks. We have these little markings called 'accents' that perform a number of different functions, one main function of certain accents being to break up, or divide, the text at hand into logical (not mathematical) sections. For example, in English, when you come to a period, you think "whoa - the end of a sentence. Let's keep reading". You've interrupted the sentence you were reading and tied it off as a complete thought, in order to proceed to the next sentence. Or, for another example, when you come to a semi-colon, you pause for just a second and unconsciously mark a distinction or a break between what you just read and what you are about to read.
You just did it again. Because I put a space between the paragraph you just finished reading and the one you're reading now, you're mind automatically made a logical break between the two. These are all examples of 'disjunctions', and some are stronger than others. The list goes on with commas, colons, double-quotes, single-quotes, ect.
So, in Hebrew, we have certain markings that also serve as disjunctive accents, some being major (like a quote), some being minor (like a comma). This is the key to understanding Isaiah 40:3 and how it relates to Mark 1:3. In Hebrew, we find that there is a major disjunctive accent on the word we've translated "calling", thus separating it from the phrase that follows. Since the action at hand is 'calling', we can, by context, understand the following phrase(s) to be informing us what the voice was calling, and thus translate this break with English quotes. In other words, Isaiah says "A voice is calling" (break) "clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness...".
Fair enough. But what happened in Mark 1:3? Why the difference? Well, the editors of the Greek New Testament that most Greek-knowing fellows carry around today, as published by UBS (United Bible Society)...overlooked this detail. How is that possible? Well, the original Greek manuscripts aren't clear on this issue one way or the other, so some editors came along later and inserted some punctuation to aid readers in understanding the Greek. Unfortunately, they filled in the blanks and inaccurately suggested that the proper reading excluded the phrase "in the wilderness" from "a voice is calling". So, if you were to look in a Greek New Testament today, you would find markings indicating such an interpretation. This type of punctuation, however, was absent in the original writings and, in fact, all Greek texts in general until roughly 150 years ago when it was added by modern editors. So, the original manuscripts both don't suggest the reading you find in your English New Testament (in contradiction to what Isaiah says), and do fully allow for Isaiah's arrangement. But, one way or another, what was written in the Hebrew text was overlooked, and a contradicting interpretation was imposed.
So, does this mean you need to know the languages in order to fully understand the Bible? Well, to actually 'fully' understand the text and answer issues like this (which, mind you, wasn't an issue 150+ years ago) - yes. There is, I believe, enough content available purely in the English to keep one busy for quite a while. Situations like this, however, are made much more of an issue when only the English is available for reference, and the original languages (and their history) are left out.
Hopefully, then, this has served as a helpful example of why knowing the languages (or at least knowing someone else who does) is extremely beneficial, and at times pivotal, when dealing with the Word of God as we have it today. Am I trying to provoke doubt in your minds as to the trustworthiness of the Word of God? No, actually, quite the opposite. It is my hope that information like this will promote a more mature and sound understanding of your Bible - beyond a mere sentimental 'this is the Holy Book'. I hope that the encountering and resolving of situations like what we dealt with in this post will help us better understand exactly what it is we hold in our hands, where it came from, and how it got to us. Armed with such a defense, may we not be disturbed by any attempts to criticize and thus cast doubt on the inerrancy of the Word of God. Such attempts are actually, as one person observed, merely repeats of the age-old tactic employed by Satan -
"Indeed, did God say...?" ~ Genesis 3:1
No comments:
Post a Comment