Variety Is the Spice of Life

As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.  Romans 4:17 NIV

As it is written – When Paul used the phrase, kathōs gegraptai (“as it is written”), he probably wasn’t thinking about the variations in the text of the Tanakh.  He relied on the text that he acknowledged as definitive, that is, according to the paradigm that governed his understanding of God’s word.  That wasn’t the Masoretic text we use as the basis of all English Bibles.  In fact, we don’t know exactly what text Paul used (although we can determine where most of his citations come from).  Even when Paul wrote this, there were other versions of the Tanakh circulating among believers.  Emanuel Tov explains the implications:

We will never have firm answers regarding whether there was once an original text of Hebrew Scripture and which of the known texts represents that text best. Moreover, at least in some chapters, it seems quite possible that more than one formulation of the text circulated already in early times, making it difficult to even discuss which formulation is earlier or later. The Masoretic Text (MT) of the Torah, the version used by all Jews today (including Karaites), is a carefully copied text, but that doesn’t mean it is perfect or always reflective of the original. When analyzing variants, scholars will often express an opinion on the comparative value for each reading, and I will do so here as well. Sometimes an MT reading is preferred, at other times a reading found in another source: a Dead Sea Scroll, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), the Torah of the Samaritan community, or the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translation that, according to tradition, was produced by seventy (LXX) sages. In all instances, while we constantly search for objective elements, such preferences are ultimately based on subjective reasoning; in other words, different views are possible.[1]

Does this frighten you?  Does it make you question the authority and authenticity of your faith in Scripture?  Do you find yourself entertaining doubts about the integrity of the text, about the instructions you want to follow?  Do you ask yourself, “But how can I know what’s true?”  If the Bible you have in your hands is really the product of various religious traditions and preferences, then how can it be the word of God?!  How much of it is just the cultural understanding (and manipulation) of men?  When it comes to religion, variety isn’t the spice; it’s the mold!

Now it’s time to take a deep breath and acknowledge that religious belief is the combination of human involvement and divine inspiration.  Believing happens within the community’s paradigm.  It is the paradigm that determines which text is the authorized text, which rituals are definitive, which behaviors are permitted or forbidden.  The paradigm is used to interpret the raw experience, requiring the text to fit its predetermined conclusions.  So it isn’t a matter of which text is “true.”  It is a matter of which text is accepted.  This is why various religious groups can point to their Bibles to justify their theologies without regard to the multiple scholarly issues that surround the transmission of the scriptures.  In the end, we believe because we choose to believe—and we continue to believe because we find that acceptance of our beliefs makes sense to us and makes us feel better about knowing the truth—according to our way of seeing things.  There may be other ways to read the text.  We may even acknowledge this.  But it doesn’t matter because what we believe really doesn’t depend on the text.  The beliefs tell us what the text says, not the other way around.  The only solution to this vicious circle is to ask, over and over again, “Where did that idea come from?” and not be afraid of the answer.

Topical Index: Scripture, truth, paradigm, belief, kathōs gegraptai, Romans 4:17

[1] Emanuel Tov, “Textual Criticism of the Torah: Ten Short Case Studies,” p. 1.