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)