"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." So runs the celebrated line in Hebrews 11:1, the rationale that underpins so much of the Judeo-Christian tradition. According to that rationale, as the writer of the Epistle puts it, faith is a summation of hope and evidence apparently lies in "things not seen" -- in the invisible and ineffable.
Considering the importance of the line in Hebrews as an anchor to Judeo-Christian belief and faith, it's worth noting -- as websites detailing various editions of the Bible underscore -- that even minor changes in translation have dramatic implications for the way people view and understand their faith. The line I quoted was from the King James version of the Bible, dating from the 17th century and treated as current at least until the end of the 19th. But when the English Revised Version appeared between 1881 and 1885 (with the New Testament appearing before the Old), after an army of scholars labored to render the Hebrew, Greek and Latin Vulgate more reliable than before, the celebrated line in Hebrews appeared quite differently: Faith became "the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen." This upped the stakes in empirical terms, in seeming to make "the evidence of things not seen" unequivocal and unambiguous, even if such things were by definition invisible to the human eye. Hope and assurance, evidence and proof, were similarly rendered more tightly bound than before -- a largely defensive response to exacting debates on these subjects that had aired throughout the 1860s and '70s.
In the 1901 American Standard Version, by contrast, the emphasis shifted from "substance" and "assurance" to "things" as a whole: "Faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen." In 1973, the New International Version decided to render that idea even more conspicuously: "Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see," a statement that thoroughly transforms the meaning of the King James Version, equating faith with the certainty of hope as if the two were identical. In the space of seven decades, in sum, the stress had changed from conviction to being certain, a dramatic change in emphasis and stance.
Websites that reproduce different versions of the Bible along side each other are especially effective (even if they don't intend to be) in demonstrating how much of its meaning hinges on translation decisions. Such differences do not bother every religious denomination, many of which welcome more colloquial renderings, but the differences do bother denominations, including evangelical ones, that continue to represent the Bible as infallible, as the literal Word of God.
The translators of the English Revised Version saw their task as one of "adapt[ing] King James' version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary," an assumption that's informed most updated versions of the Bible, but the above renderings of Hebrews 11 underscore how impossible it is to adjust vocabulary without affecting idiom and meaning. The translators also saw their task as one of "adapt[ing the Bible] to the present standard of Biblical scholarship," much of which, stemming from the German Higher Criticism of the early 1800s, stressed precisely the unreliability of the manuscripts comprising the Bible, including that the version of Genesis relayed in each of the above editions of the Bible is likely just a fraction of a much-longer creation story.
Given the advances that occurred in 19th-century science and textual studies, as well as the ongoing reliance that many Victorians continued to place on biblical literalism, it's worth noting that the doubt and skepticism that came to define so much of 19th-century society also focused intensively on the very lines that Hebrews 11:1 tried to render unambiguously. To no avail. As I show in "The Age of Doubt" by focusing on the number of Victorians who began with that Epistle as their starting-point, their doubt quickly expanded in focus from the Creation story, the Flood, and the existence of miracles to the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ and, ultimately, the very existence of God.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for" became a psychological proposition, as William James made clear in "The Will to Believe" (1896), even as he defended that stance and worried about faith trying to express itself "in the language of the gaming-table." As James well-knew, the devout understandably want to view their faith as inevitable -- as existing beyond chance, contingency and debate. Close examination of key passages in the Bible underscores, by contrast, that the book they worship is far from reliable, its meaning altered by successive generations of translators, each hoping to put their indelible stamp on it, to cast its ever-changing message as fixed and eternal.
Greg Garrett: Christ Isn't Missing From 'The Voice' -- Just the Biblical Jargon
Has anyone noticed that Lane has absolutely no evidence to support his erroneous statement? This guy must read the National Inquirer or the Onion for his daily news!
The Bible has proven to be more historically and archaeologically accurate than any other ancient book. It has been subjected to the minutest scientific textual analysis possible to humanity and has been proven to be authentic in every way by the following tests:
Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).
There are more than 4,000 different ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or portions of the New Testament that have survived to our time.
Jesus: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away" (Matt. 24:35]
Those who denigrate Scripture are saying that man is more powerful than God, and God is not powerful enough to keep his promises to preserve his Word
The same people who decry the Catholic church's teaching about papal infallibility, have turned a collection of writings from a nomadic unlettered tribe (Old Testament), and writings about events many years after they were supposed to have happened (New Testament), into a Bible that they regard as the infallible Word of God, that is, a paper pope.
The rebuttal to this statement was succinctly put by Ambrose Bierce:
FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
5,600 are copies and fragments in the original Greek. Manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries. That predates lliad.
Do you believe the authenticity of The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts) Pliny the Younger's Natural History (7 manuscripts);Thucydides' History (8 manuscripts) or Iliad Manuscripts?
The Christian Church have way more “proof” of authenticity, proof text more frequently and have challenged or have challenges to the Bible than any other book ever written. That does not include Old Testament text scrutiny and archeological evidence that I am sure any Jewish scholar could enlighten you on.
Your opinion, and that is all it is, really does not support the facts.
The life of Christ and the srories of would have been well know. The 12 apostles where not the only ones following Christ. There were hundreds of others and they where some where still living when Peter, Paul, and the other apostles began the Christian Church.
And there is the bible that contains so many references to historical events and historical figures that can be, has been and will continue to be confirmation of truth contained the Bible contains.
I guess you will have to always remain uncomfortable about God's existence. There will never be...I will repeat that for you just in case you couldn't hear me...never be empirical evidence for God's existence.
If you stop to think for about five seconds, you should be able to grasp that a God who can create a universe and all living things within it is so beyond your "test tube" desires. Can you even imagine how arrogant that you must appear to God? Of all the wonders of His creation, someone who believes that he, which is you, is the bi-product of a cosmic accident that somehow managed to crawl out of the sludge wants Him, God Almighty, to prove Himself before such blasphemy? Won't ever happen.
Your time would be better spent if you searched for your soul...then, maybe...just maybe...you might find what you are seeking.
The author of this article is an atheist. The Truth is not in him, and no amount of apologetics can change that for him. He furthers his income by writing about that which he doesn't believe in. And, by doing so becomes a thief to society.
I read and watche dhim when ever I could. His brother was ateist turned Christian.
Christian Strobel and Chris Fabry wher once atheist turned devout Christian. Many atheist would be more prone to believe in little green men than God and I find that really amusing.
There is the operative phrase. Worship of the book instead of the God they purport it leads one to. So many Christians like to point to their God's "Word" as unchanging while it is constantly changing. How they avoid that fact is beyond comprehension, only explained by the possibility of drinking to much from a river in Egypt!!
They worship a book they equate with God, a book that changes. Small wonder at the confusion most of them aren't even cognizant of......and many others choose not to be.
Those who worship themselves, such as you, find the fool they are looking for.
We have a definition of "faith" in Hebrews.
We have your discussion of the difficulties in translating the definition.
And then an (I'm fairly sure inadvertent) argument from some people that a biblical definition is not necessary.
A small but very pure piece of joy!
It is very simple really. You either trust fully the universe that birthed you into existence or you don't. One way is the path of resistance and suffering, the other, the path of mental, physical and spiritual liberation. It is a journey every one of us is on and a big part of what life is all about :)
God or someone with power is the only one who understands faith [ie the author has that power or doesn't understand faith]. Some wise people in history have understood faith and tried to explain it. Some were religious and some weren't. Some people who didn't understand believed that they did understand. That was futile. [A sentence that makes no sense at all]
It is very simple really. You trust the universe or you don't. If you resist this you suffer. If you don't you get mental, spiritual and physical liberation. Everyone living gets to make the choice.
Yikes! Why didn't I think of that!
(God or someone with power is the only one who understands faith) - no., I never mentioned the word God.
(ie the author has that power or doesn't understand faith) - Sometimes I have faith in whats happening and hence the power as relates to my own life and life goes smoothly and sometimes I forget.
(Some people who didn't understand believed that they did understand. That was futile. [A sentence that makes no sense at all] - Some people that didn't understand the words in different texts that explained real faith tried to change these words. That is how the comment I posted related to the article. Many original words held truth, but were changed and therefore have changed the meaning over time.
It's futile because it gets one no closer to the answers they seek about life. You can't avoid faith. We use it everyday in so many areas. Whether it is the faith that the driver behind us will stop properly at a red light or that the pilot will fly our plane safely or that the food at the restaurant is ok to eat. We use it in so many sub-conscious ways but when it is used consciously it becomes of great help to areas of our life where we feel disharmony, thus working to lift us out of it.
it's not about religion it's about a greater understanding of your consciousness and the real power you do have in life.
Second, the scriptures should be self supporting. If there is an error in translation that significantly changes the original meaning, it will become obvious when it conflicts with other passages.
Finally, the Word of God may have some issues with translations and therefore may not be perfect. But it is a heck of a lot better than me coming up with my own theology. And even far better than theology based on public opinion. It takes a lot of prayer and effort to study the Bible in a way that God's truth is communicated to you. Don't give up.
I think people who 'say' they have Faith yet tear the Bible apart are in serious denial.
For one, born again believers in Jesus Christ do not worship the book, they worship the one who the book reveals and although there are versions that alter the meaning of God's Word, His intentions for mankind, haven't changed.
No matter what criticisms non-believers and some believers have of the King James Bible, the bottom line is, through God's grace and providence and the words contained on its pages, untold millions of people, if not more, have come to know and believe in Jesus Christ including myself. The proof, it is said, is in the pudding.
Humankind needs a personnage god at this stage or level of our understanding of Reality.
This goes way back-Pantaenus thought the style was awkward and not Pauline because Luke or Mark translated from a Hebrew Original, Clement thought that it was Paul and explained away the stylistic issue-can't remember exact argument-sorry-but Origen, the greatest of the three Alexandrian exegetes actually rejects Pauline authorship on stylistic grounds. Three Christians-2nd to 3rd centuries CE.
That is only one example. The idea that all Christians took the Bible "literally" and pretty much agreed on the text and its provenance until the 19th century, is demonstrably false
Thanks--that's true, it is indeed a false claim, but it's also not the claim that I made. I was talking about those denominations that did--indeed, still do--take the Bible literally.
When you proceed from the premise that a major element of human history, such as the words of Scripture, Christ’s life on earth, His crucifixion and His resurrection is simply inaccurate, and ignore or routinely minimize evidence that conflicts with that premise is shamefully irresponsible. History done in this way is not ethical, it’s just denial.
Here is where we separate the unbiased and ethical from your goal of simply making war on Scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Incidentally, Christ sanctioned/ ratified ALL of Scripture. That also is a fact of history. I would think His authority ranks a lot higher than yours!