Critiquing: #026 Bible translations and controversies

December 5, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Bible translations — Holy Spirit capitalization — NT Wright’s translation — Manuscript authenticity — Lord’s Prayer translation

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode provides accurate information on Bible translations and the process NT Wright used for his translation, but could benefit from more references to specific sources.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The discussion is logically structured, addressing various aspects of translation and specific questions from listeners, but occasionally digresses.
Absence of Fallacies	B	Mostly free from logical fallacies, though there are moments where broad claims are made without sufficient backing.
Degree of Evidence	C+	The episode relies heavily on NT Wright’s personal experiences and interpretations, lacking substantial empirical evidence for some claims.
Degree of Testability	C	Many of the theological claims and preferences for translations are subjective and difficult to empirically test.
Rational Confidence	B-	The confidence in the arguments presented is moderate, grounded in theological expertise but lacking empirical verification.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Evidence and Testability: The assertion that certain Bible translations are more accurate without providing specific comparative analysis can be seen as insufficiently substantiated.

“I’ve tried in mine to stick as close to the text as I can, recognizing that many words don’t have a one-on-one correspondence.”

2. Coherence and Absence of Fallacies: The discussion on the capitalization of “Holy Spirit” could be clearer in differentiating between theological preferences and traditional practices.

“It’s partly a rejection of what in the trade we call docetism, which is the idea of a Jesus who’s sort of floating six inches above reality and then a Holy Spirit who’s floating.”

3. Testability: Claims regarding the inspiration and authenticity of certain biblical texts, like the story of the woman caught in adultery, are challenging to empirically test.

“It’s an odd passage in the sense that it doesn’t seem to flow directly out of chapter 7, and it doesn’t seem to flow directly into chapter 8. But it does look as though it belongs somewhere.”

---

Major Arguments and Syllogistic Formulations:

Argument 1: Capitalization of “Holy Spirit”

Premises:

1. Traditional Bible translations capitalize “Holy Spirit” to denote divinity.
2. NT Wright chooses not to capitalize “Holy Spirit” in his translation.
3. The original Greek manuscripts do not use capitalization as a means of denoting divinity.

Conclusion:
Therefore, NT Wright’s choice to not capitalize “Holy Spirit” aims to reflect the original Greek manuscripts more accurately and avoid creating unnecessary distinctions.

Counter-Argument:
While striving for accuracy, not capitalizing “Holy Spirit” might confuse readers accustomed to traditional translations, potentially diminishing the perceived divinity and significance of the term. Maintaining traditional capitalization can help preserve the reverence and clarity associated with references to the Holy Spirit in Christian doctrine.

---

Argument 2: Manuscript Variants and Biblical Authenticity

Premises:

1. There are numerous manuscript variants of the New Testament texts.
2. Scholars use textual criticism to determine the most likely original texts.
3. Some passages, like the story of the woman caught in adultery, are absent from the earliest manuscripts.

Conclusion:
Therefore, while certain passages may not be present in the earliest manuscripts, they can still be considered inspired and included in the Bible based on historical and theological significance.

Counter-Argument:
Relying on later manuscripts for biblical authenticity raises concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the scriptures. It is essential to prioritize the earliest and most reliable manuscripts to ensure the text remains as close as possible to the original writings, maintaining historical accuracy and theological consistency.

---

Argument 3: Translation of the Lord’s Prayer

Premises:

1. Pope Francis suggested that “lead us not into temptation” is a mistranslation.
2. He proposed an alternative translation: “do not let us enter into temptation.”
3. This change aims to clarify the theological understanding that God does not lead people into temptation.

Conclusion:
Therefore, adopting Pope Francis’ suggested translation could provide a clearer and more accurate theological interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer.

Counter-Argument:
Changing familiar phrases like those in the Lord’s Prayer can cause confusion and resistance among believers accustomed to traditional wording. Instead of altering the text, better catechesis and teaching about the theological implications of the existing translation might help believers understand its intended meaning without disrupting long-held traditions.

◉ Highlighting the Oddity of a God who Writes a Holy Book:

Questioning the Modus Operandi of Divine Communication

Holy books are the modus operandi of nearly all religions, many of which Christians assert are false. This raises an intriguing question: Why would an actual God stoop to this tactic? In considering the nature of an omnipresent and omnipotent God, the reliance on written texts to convey divine will seems paradoxical.

To illustrate this oddity, imagine a scenario: a man stands hidden behind the curtains of a woman’s bedroom. He hands notes out her bedroom window to his friends outside. Those friends then knock on her front door and hand the notes to her, assuring her that a man is inside her bedroom who loves her very much and that all she needs to do is believe. This analogy highlights the peculiar indirectness of communication through holy books. Why would not an actual omnipresent and omnipotent God, who desires a personal relationship with humans, make His nature and will clearly known by speaking to us directly?

From a theological perspective, Christians argue that the Bible is divinely inspired, serving as a reliable medium through which God’s nature and will are revealed. However, this method is open to interpretation, misunderstanding, and distortion over centuries. Translations and cultural contexts further complicate the clarity of the message. If God’s intention is to cultivate a personal relationship with humanity, the reliance on a textual medium seems counterintuitive.

An omnipotent God has the capacity to engage with humans in a direct and unambiguous manner. Speaking to individuals through their hearts, minds, or even audibly would eliminate the potential for misinterpretation inherent in written texts. Such direct communication would make God’s presence and will unmistakable, fostering a more intimate and personal relationship with each individual. This approach aligns more coherently with the notion of an all-loving deity who seeks an unmediated connection with His creation.

Moreover, the indirectness of holy books parallels the hidden man behind the curtain. It relies on intermediaries—prophets, apostles, and religious leaders—who interpret and convey the divine message. This reliance introduces human error and subjectivity, further distancing the believer from direct divine communication. The analogy underscores the inherent skepticism and lack of immediacy that can arise from such an indirect mode of communication.

Critics of the holy book approach argue that it is a human construct, a way for religions to institutionalize and control belief systems. They suggest that an actual God, desiring a genuine relationship with humans, would transcend the need for such intermediaries and engage directly with each person. This direct engagement would be consistent with the characteristics of omnipresence and omniscience, ensuring that every individual receives an unambiguous understanding of divine will and love.

In conclusion, the reliance on holy books as the primary means of divine communication raises significant questions about the nature of God’s interaction with humanity. If God is truly omnipotent and omnipresent, seeking a personal relationship with humans, direct and clear communication would be more logical and effective. This perspective challenges the traditional view of divine revelation and invites a deeper exploration of how an all-powerful deity might choose to engage with His creation.

---

We warmly welcome further discussion on this topic in the comments section below. Your insights and perspectives are invaluable as we explore these profound and challenging questions together.