No, but I've read his book, Misquoting Jesus, which probably covers the same material. In this book, he writes about changes made to the texts by copyists, some changes being accidental, some intentional.
Divine Inspiration(?) of Scripture
by hmike 13 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
I don't believe that the texts collected into the Bible are any more or any less "inspired" than others, but I'd just give a few comments on your points:
1. The influence of the LXX is not limited to "wording". For instance, the very idea, hence the two narratives, of the "virgin birth," rest on the LXX of Isaiah 7:14. They have no basis whatsoever in the Hebrew Bible.
2. I don't think the phrase "I, not the Lord" in 1 Corinthians implies a lesser degree of "inspiration" or the total lack thereof (otherwise the claim to "having God's Spirit" would be self-contradicting). It rather points out the difference between Paul's original teaching and that which is common to the Christian churches he deals with (and ascribed to a "dominical" tradition).
3. A further problem as to the "accurate wording" of the Gospels is that Jesus is supposed to have spoken in Aramaic (cf. the transliterations in Mark) while the texts were written in Greek. This is imo a basic problem for those who, like the WTBTS, (1) claim that the Gospels do transmit Jesus' actual words and then (2) overanalyse (often mixing up etymology with semantics) the subtle nuances of the Greek words they use -- nuances which could hardly be translated "back" into Aramaic.
-
hmike
Thank you very much, Narkissos, for actually addressing my questions. I thought they were worthwhile observations to bring up, but I was beginning to think they would drift off into oblivion.
All your points are interesting. As for Point #1, that would imply that, even if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, there would have been a strong Hellenistic influence, as Leolia pointed out in the "Matthew" thread.
Especially interesting is Point #3. Of course, the counterclaim would be that the Holy Spirit directed the choice of Greek words, again getting back to what I said in #!—"Can a translation be inspired?"
Related to Point #3: I have a copy of the Holman translation of the Bible. Do you have an opinion of it?
-
Narkissos
As for Point #1, that would imply that, even if Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, there would have been a strong Hellenistic influence, as Leolia pointed out in the "Matthew" thread.
As I understood it, Leolaia's point was that the main narrative framework of the extant Gospel of Matthew was provided by the Greek Gospel of Mark, ruling out an original composition (not translation) in Aramaic (which means that Papias' "Hebrew" "Matthew," if it ever existed, was nothing like our current first canonical Gospel; btw Papias presents it as a collection of "oracles," not a story). Of course this doesn't apply to the birth story since it is absent from Mark. Furthermore, there is a distinct possibility that the "virgin" element is a secondary addition to Matthew as textual variants in 1:16-18 suggest. In any case, the "virgin" motive in both Luke 1--2 and the extant Matthew clearly rests on the LXX.
Related to Point #3: I have a copy of the Holman translation of the Bible. Do you have an opinion of it?
Sorry, I heard of it but have never seen one.