To what end should we examine historical scholarship into the life of Jesus? Coming off of the “Easter season”, I now reflect on the volume of information I am always exposed to during the holiday. Not just through the lens of the Church, but through television programs and documentaries. There are always at least some “interesting things” found in these pieces, and I am at a bit of a conflict as to how we should respond.
For example- I have been confronted with unknown scholars talking about the Greek word tekton. This is the word (allegedly) that has been translated as “carpenter” in the New Testament account of Christ. They argued that the word is more accurately translated “one who works with their hands”. This could include different trades. Is it true? Does it matter? Is it questioning the inerrancy of Scripture to claim that a word was translated incorrectly into English.
I would love to hear your comments.
2 comments:
Maybe it is important, but I tend to think that the point is that Jesus was a man. He worked. He learned earthly skills. He became part of the culture, but remained holy, blameless, and perfect.
To answer your questions...
1) Maybe. I don't know.
2) Yes and no.
3) Perhaps. I often hear great pastors and teachers explaining how modern translations mistranslate the Greek or Hebrew into English. They don't question the inerrancy of God-breathed scripture, but they do question the inerrancy of translators. Those are two different things. Most scholars I trust always say, "The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts." Even the blessed ESV gets it wrong from time to time.
That's why the conservative Islamic view of the Qur'an is so intriguing. If your religious text has existed eternally in a single language then you don't have to deal with these issues.
Post a Comment