Is it your thought that the scope of OT scripture interpreted by Jesus on the road to Emmaus is fully referenced in the resulting canon of NT texts?

Well, maybe not completely, but surely all the things which God wanted to be written down as permanent teaching for the church found their way into the NT. As for what Jesus might have said on the road to Emmaus which is not recorded in the NT, we can only speculate, and that speculation is not a solid enough basis for us to change the inspired text of the OT to incorporate it.

you also believe that the majority of Christian Bibles are in error …

Yes, when they do this in the text of the OT. Not in serious error, but still doing the wrong thing. And I’m not sure this is “the majority”, but of course that depends how you count them. But it is a significant number, including NIV. I’m glad that TNIV has moved away from this practice, without completely abandoning it.

As you know, I agree with you in principle on the matter of leaving the OT alone from a rewriting perspective. Is it your thought that the scope of OT scripture interpreted by Jesus on the road to Emmaus is fully referenced in the resulting canon of NT texts? That has some suggestive possibilities on the collaborative power of the Holy Spirit, or whatever divine inspiration guided each author’s contribution.

Interpret all you like, but be very careful what you write back into the text.

I assume then, that you also believe that the majority of Christian Bibles are in error when they add capitalization, change pronouns, etc. in order to bring out the Christ references?

what’s the difference between interpreting and rewriting? And if Christ is the head of our church, isn’t his interpretation the most important one for us to have?

The difference between interpreting and rewriting is that the results of your interpretation find their way into sermons, into Christian books, into Study Bible notes etc, whereas the results of rewriting find their way into the main text of the Bible. Interpret all you like, but be very careful what you write back into the text.

Yes, Jesus’ interpretation of the Old Testament is the most important for us, and is rightly recorded for us in Scripture – in the New Testament. But it is not the only valid interpretation of the OT and should not be written back into the OT thereby erasing the original text of the OT. Thus, for example, Psalm 2 was written primarily about the son of the king of Israel or Judah, and this meaning should not be erased by imposing on it as the only possible interpretation the Messianic one – which is clear in the NT. By deleting OT passages and replacing them with NT ones we destroy the OT.

Meanwhile Richard Fellows argues that Timothy and Titus are the same person, who presumably received three letters from Paul!

-John ch.1
-rendition of theology in Romans
-how much is rendered poetry in OT?
-how is the tetragr. handled in OT?

I also randomly check other passages, or places I’ve just read in the past week. Sometimes the format, layout, typography makes a difference, and I hate red-letter editions… I have bought a few bibles just to have another translation of the deuterocanonicals as well.

I’m wrestling with my recent preference for meaning-based translation vs. what I’ve been taught in terms of letting the OT speak for itself, without overlaying Christ into it to produce meaning. I think you’re understanding my question quite correctly.

@David: that poor Titus, needing three letters to get things straightened out when Tim only needed two. Maybe some day we’ll find the other two letters… I’ve corrected the citation to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 — that’s what happens when your online lookup tool uses “Ti” as the book abbreviation.

(Aside: doesn’t Titus seem to read like a Cliff Notes version of all of Paul’s letters put together? It feels like a “Best of Paul” or “Paul’s Greatest Hits” letter to me.)

Re the ISV: I forgot about the rhyming – I remember reading a bit before and it made me think of the Limerick Bible. Though I did appreciate the “deeds of doom” choice in 2 Corinthians 11.

@All – I appreciate your indulgence of my stream of consciousness posting. Every so often I am overcome with the need to just write and let words spill out. It is generally fruitless to try and edit these posts into a coherent essay.

I’ll be honest. I do look at 1 Tim 2 because it has a lot of stuff in it, key terms, discourse features and the dreaded anthropos/aner distinction (not to mention the last verse!). Also, I read the Psalms and if they make me gag I head elsewhere.

I looked at ISV yesterday and it seemed pretty unexciting to me except for the annoying use of Messiah. And the rhyming stuff made me crazy. Hobbins is very pleased with the footnotes.

I know people use Is. 7:14 and capitalization in Ps. 2, etc.