DID THE AUTHOR OF HEBREWS MAKE A PURPOSEFUL ERROR IN HEBREWS 11:21?

It is one thing to believe that the authors of the Bible were not aware of certain facts when they were writing or that their original manuscripts (the “autographs”) were not always copied accurately by subsequent generations of scribes. However, it is quite another to state that these inspired authors purposefully put errors into their writings. But that is what some have claimed.

But the interesting thing I learned in the process of researching the specific issue of Hebrews 11:21 is that the various scholars who comment on it seem to have been just as prone to error as the author of Hebrews was. However, I will stop short of accusing them of making those errors purposefully.

The best place to start is to cite the passages under question:

    “By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff.” (Hebrews 11:21, RSV)

    “And he (Israel/Jacob) said, 'Swear to me'; and he (Joseph) swore to him. Then Israel bowed himself upon the head of his bed.” (Genesis 47:31, RSV)

For example, in his blogsite The PostBarthian: “Ecumenical Reformed Musing,” Wyatt Houtz posted a short essay with the provocative title “John Calvin believed the Original Autographs of the Bible had Errors.” Quoting from Calvin's Commentary on Hebrews, we read the words:

    "And worshipped on the top, etc. This is one of those places from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly used by the Hebrews; for the Greek translators could not have made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode of writing was then the same as now. No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said על ראש המטה but the Greek translators rendered the words, “On the top of his staff” as though the last word was written, mathaeh. The Apostle hesitated not to apply to his purpose what was commonly received: he was indeed writing to the Jews; but they who were dispersed into various countries, had changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk; and in this there is no danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and original text of Scripture. But, in reality, the difference is but little...for the main thing was, that Jacob worshiped, which was an evidence of his gratitude. He was therefore led by faith to submit himself to his son.” (Calvin)

Houtz's comment on Calvin's comment is that “he provides an example of how his Doctrine of Accommodation allows for errors in the original autographs of the Scriptures. Calvin's reference to the 'Greek translators' is most likely the translators of the Septuagint. Calvin believes that the Septuagint translators wrongly translated 1 Kings 1:47 to say "on top of his staff" (instead of 'the head of his couch'. Calvin blames the translational error on the authors of the Septuagint rather than the Apostle of the epistle to the Hebrews, however Calvin affirms that the Apostle knowingly used the Septuagint's erroneous translation in the original autograph rather than correcting the error. Calvin believed that the Hebrew original of 1 Kings 1:47 is ambiguous in its meaning, but should not be translated as the Septuagint translators had placed 'staff" in the text instead of 'bed' In Calvin's mind, the Septuagint was the commonly received and know (sic) form of the Hebrew scriptures in the Apostle's audience, so it would be more appropriate to include the error in his quotation of 1 Kings 1:47 because it stands in the version of the Septuagint possessed by those whom the Apostle is writing.”

Now, just to confuse things even more, here is my comment on Houtz's comment on Calvin's comment on Hebrews 11:21: In the first place, if you compare what Calvin said with Houtz's interpretation of his words, you can see that Houtz has really zeroed in on Calvin's opinion that the LXX was obviously in error and that Calvin “knowingly” utilized that erroneous translation anyway because it happened to suit his purpose. However, Houtz and Calvin both mention that the original consonantal text was ambiguous and could be translated as either “bed” or “staff.” So it is really not that obvious that Calvin knew for sure that the LXX was actually in error.

Secondly, Calvin and/or Houtz seem to feel that the author of Hebrews was the Apostle (presumably Paul), which is highly unlikely.

And most glaringly, Houtz gets hopelessly confused at this point by mistakenly thinking that the Old Testament text from which Hebrews is quoting is I Kings 1:47, when it is actually Genesis 47:31, as any modern commentary will indicate. I Kings 1:47 concerns King David on his death bed, not Jacob, and the Hebrew word for “bed” in that verse is completely different from the one in Genesis 47:31. How in the world did Houtz get that far off base? It seems obvious, if you look at Calvin's Commentaries on the internet, that Houtz inadvertently started commenting on the editorial note that followed Calvin's words, which discussed a side issue having little directly to do with Hebrews 11:21.

And, by the way, that particular editor expressed the opinion that the author of Hebrews accepted the LXX of Genesis 47:31 in good faith, not as an error. As Hawthorne states, “The OT, used so frequently in Hebrews was always the Greek translation, known as the Septuagint (LXX). Never did the author quote from the Hebrew text nor does he show any knowledge of it...This...certainly tells something about the audience as well as the author.”

Another fact which the editor of Calvin's Commentaries points out is one seldom mentioned by modern commentators, namely that though the wording in Hebrews 11:21 comes basically from Genesis 47:31, the actual event of blessing of Joseph's sons does not occur until Genesis 48:8-14. The author of Hebrews has conflated the two incidents together, probably accidentally since he apparently didn't have a copy of Genesis in front of him at the time of writing. We see the same sort of inadvertent mistakes made by Stephen as he is preaching to the hostile crowd right before his stoning. But neither case proves that the authors of the Bible purposely made erroneous statements.

As mentioned above, the reason for the interchangeable translations “bed” and “staff” is no doubt because the original Hebrew texts contained only consonants, while the pointings to indicate the appropriate vowels were added at a much later date. Thus, as Hamilton says, “It is likely that the translators of the LXX read mth as 'staff' simply because matteh is a more common Hebrew word than mitta, and it has already appeared in Genesis (ch. 38).” Matteh was translated by the Greek word rhabdos, which it turns out was a favorite word with the author of Hebrews, appearing also in Heb. 1:8 as “scepter” and in Heb. 9:4 as “rod.” And Stibbs mentions that both translations, “staff” or “bed”, are equally valid.

Calvert-Koysis attempts to show why “staff” is an appropriate interpretation to use at Heb. 11:21 – “Jacob...blesses Ephraim and Manasseh...while he was still sojourning. This fact is attested to by his use of a staff, which for the Jews was a sign of pilgrimage.” Thus, in Calvert-Koysis' mind it fits in well with the following verse in which the coming exodus is mentioned. But this seems a highly unlikely view in light of the fact that Jacob uttered his blessing while on his death bed, not during any sort of pilgrimage, except in perhaps a very metaphorical way.

Bruce even combines the two readings when he says, “The picture of the patriarch sitting on his bed and leaning on his staff is convincing enough; the same cannot be said for the mistranslation in the Latin New Testament, which makes him worship the top of his staff.” Ellingsworth comments on these two comments of Bruce. First he clarifies Bruce's second statement by explaining that the Latin Vulgate and some other ancient translations omitted the word epi (“on”), “thus making Jacob worship the top of his staff.” There is a hint of that idea even in the more modern Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible. Then Ellingsworth expresses his opinion that Bruce's harmonizing suggestion regarding the two possible translations is not really needed.

That brings us to the comments of Buchanan, who makes the statement, “In his report of Joseph, the author of Hebrews copied directly the LXX version of Gen 47:31, which does not make much sense...Although the Greek implies that Joseph considered the staff as some object of worship and bowed himself before it, the Hebrew simply meant that he was lying prostrate on the top of or at the head of his bed, a normal position for a dying man.”

In the first place, the author of Hebrews is talking about Jacob, not Joseph, doing the bowing. In the second place, as Ellingsworth makes clear, the LXX of Genesis 47:31 does not at all consider the staff to be an object of worship; that misreading is only found in the Latin Vulgate and a few other versions, as Bruce confirms.

So overall, we have a whole comedy of out-and-out erroneous statement and highly unlikely opinions, made mainly by the Bible commentators rather than the biblical authors.