Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 6 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
The Bible: Exploring Facts and Myths About the Word of God  /  Capital Error  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 6
He claims the NIV/ESV often capitalize “law” in the Gospels but switch to lowercase in Acts/epistles, and he highlights Hebrews 10 where the NIV lowercases “law of Moses” while capitalizing “Day”; what do you make of his argument that this pattern “predisposes” readers toward Luther’s framework, and what evidence would you want to see to confirm or challenge his charge of deliberate intent?
Another way to ask: What do you think about his claim that some translations capitalize “Law” in the Gospels but not in Acts and the letters, and that this pushes readers toward Luther’s view? What proof would you want before agreeing it was done on purpose?

Direct Answer Bercot’s argument is that inconsistent capitalization trains readers to interpret “the law” as law in general once they reach Paul, which supports Luther’s “not under any commandments” framework. To confirm or challenge deliberate intent, he points mainly to internal textual patterns; further confirmation would require checking consistency across many passages and seeing whether the context clearly demands “Law of Moses.”

Support from Transcript:

  • He says NIV/ESV “capitalize…in the four gospels,” then “beginning with the Book of Acts…switch to a lowercase L whenever the phrase ‘the law’ appears.”
  • He argues the effect: “This way, when the reader gets to Romans…his mind is already taking…the law…to be talking about law in general.”
  • He gives Luke 2 as evidence of correct capitalization (“law of Moses,” “law of the Lord,” “custom of the law”).
  • He gives Hebrews 10:28-29 as inconsistency: “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses…”—they “don't capitalize,” which he calls “absurdly inconsistent.”
  • He notes NIV capitalizes “Day” in Hebrews 10:25 despite unclear referent, suggesting they are “keenly aware” of capitalization choices.
Discussion Follow-ups Would a broad survey of Acts/epistles in NIV/ESV support his pattern claim? How should we weigh “effect on readers” versus proving translator intent?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next