Friday, November 5, 2021

Noel Weeks on the Authority of the Bible in Translation

Noel Weeks, in his The Sufficiency of Scripture wrote the following in a chapter entitled “The Perfect Translation”

 

It is sometimes argued that we do not have a completely accurate knowledge of Scripture because there may have been errors made by copyists. Or it can be argued we make use of Scripture in translation, and that no translation can possess the exact force of the original. Or perhaps it is argued that it is impossible to know exactly what an author had in mind. Any interpretation involves uncertainty.

 

From this it is then argued that the whole idea of an authoritative Scripture has been undermined. Yet this whole argument is built on the premise [that] no approximation, no matter how small, can be correct or have authority. The only alternatives are absolute precision or no authority whatsoever.

 

Actually, this view is easily refuted if the authority of Jesus or the apostles is taken seriously. For they used translations or Scripture, quoting it in Aramaic (Matt. 27:46) or Greek (Acts, passim). The whole argument against the possibility of an authoritative Scripture is an argument against Jesus. He used Scripture as an authority. But he used a translation. Already by his time there were differences in the manuscripts of the Old Testament and the argument that one cannot perfectly understand an author would apply against him as much as against us.

 

The reality is that the convicting, converting, and sanctifying truth of Scripture comes through in spite of human errors in copying, translating, and even in spite of misconceptions. That in itself is proof that Scripture is not a rationalist truth which depends on total precision. (Noel Weeks, The Sufficiency of Scripture [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, 1998], 41-42)

 

Later in his book, Weeks wrote the following about the use of Amos 9 in Acts 15:

 

Interpretation of [Amos 9:11, 12] is complicated by a difference between the Massoretic text and the Septuagint translation into Greek. It is the Greek text which is quoted in Acts 15;16, 17.

 

The Massoretic text of Amos 9:12a may be translated: ‘In order that they may possess the remnant of Edom’ (It could be that Edom was present in the text read by the Septuagint translators. However they caught the force of the passage and paraphrased it as a picture of Gentiles seeking the Lord and thus incorporated into Israel). The Septuagint implies that its translators were using a slightly different text or that they were interpreting in the process of translation (or both!) It reads: ‘In order that the rest of men may seek the Lord’.

 

We do not know for certain which was the original text, nor do we know whether James had any thoughts on the relationship of the Hebrew and Greek versions. What we obviously have is a prophecy of the re-establishment of the Davidic kingdom and that the Gentiles were to be incorporated into it in some way. The terms and images are those of David’s empire. Since Edom was part of that empire the mention of Edom would not be out of place in the original text. However if Edom stood in the original, the parallel makes it clear that Edom was standing only as an example. Edom is in parallel with ‘all the nations who are called by My name’.

 

This prophecy is seen by James as fulfilled in the church and the incorporation of Gentiles into it. Hence the image is David’s kingdom. The realization of the prophecy is the multi-racial church.

 

The case makes one thing explicit. The church with its incorporation of Gentiles was predicted in an Old Testament prophecy. James makes this very clear. The topic of debate at the Jerusalem Council was whether the Gentiles should be incorporated as full members of the church. James says (Acts 15:14, 15) that Peter’s rehearsal of the history of Gentile membership in the church is in agreement with this prophecy. Yet the original prophecy was in terms of an incorporation of Gentiles into a renewed Davidic kingdom.

 

The use of the metaphor of the Davidic kingdom for the church is not really difficult. The form which the kingdom of God took in the Old Testament is a picture for predicting its re-establishment in the church, which is the form of God’s kingdom in the New Covenant age. If Edom stood in the original it is a perfectly understandable choice. What better picture than Edom, with its hated of its brother Israel, to picture the reconciliation in one both of Jew and Gentile. (Ibid., 120-21)