not all versions are created equal

7/28/2019 Not All Versions are Created Equal

1/8

Excursus B

NOT ALL VERSIONS

ARE CREATED EQUAL

From the first complete translation of the English Bible in 1382 (normally attributed

to John Wycliffe [c1330-1384]), there are today literally hundreds of English

translations of the Bible. These translations, normally called versions, are usually

directly translated from the original languages of the Bible. Yet not all the translations

are equally reliable.

Older versions, for instance, are less reliable because they had access only to

less reliable source documents. As we have seen in chapter 6, the King James

Version, or Authorized Version, or KJV for short, which was first published in 1611,was based on the Greek Text of Erasmus known as The Textus Receptus. Most

modern versions, however, are based on newly discovered, more ancient, texts as well

as scientific textual studies. So in general, modern versions are more reliable than

older ones.1 Some examples of good modern translations include the New Revised

Standard Version (NRSV), its precursor the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the

New English Bible (NEB) and paraphrased Good News Bible (GNB).

Our interest here is in a particular subset of modern versions: those coming from

evangelical publishers. Some examples of such translations include The Book, The

Living Bible and The New International Version (NIV). Apart from textual evidence

one additional consideration looms large in these versions: their belief in biblical

inerrancy. Given below is the quote taken from the Translators Preface of the NIV:

In working towards these goals, the translators were united in their commitment to

the authority and infallibility of the Bible as Gods word in written form.2

As the ex-fundamentalist preacher and songwriter, Dan Barker, remarked:

This is hardly an objective agenda for a team of translators! Imagine if freethinkers

publish a new bible translation, prefacing it with a statement that we are united in

our commitment to bash and disprove Gods word.3

The NIV is the best selling English Bible today. Since its first introduction in

1973, this evangelical version has sold more than 215 million copies worldwide.4

Since the average evangelical or fundamentalist will very likely be using this version,

it is important to understand how the translators belief in biblical inerrancy affects

their rendition of the Bible.

1 Metzger, Companion to the Bible: p758-7632 NIV, p: xxxix3 Barker,Losing Faith in Faith: p2694 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version accessed on October 1,

2007

196


2/8

REMOVING CONTRADICTIONS BY QUOTING

OR USING LESS AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS

Some alterations seem to have been made to remove contradictions from the main

text. One example comes from a contradiction long known to exist between the textsof II Kings and II Chronicles:

II Kings 24:8 NRSV

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King; he reigned three months

in Jerusalem

II Chronicles 36:9 NRSV

Jehoiachin was eightyears old when he began to reign; he reigned three months

and ten days in Jerusalem.

The NRSV did not even have a footnote at II Chronicles 36:9, implying that the main

textual traditions supported this reading, although it is in contradiction to the passage

in II Kings. Let us see how the NIV presents these passages:

II Kings 24:8 NIV

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned in

Jerusalem for three months.

II Chronicles 36:9 NIV

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign and he reigned inJerusalem for three months and ten days.

See how the contradiction has disappeared! Have there been new discoveries in

archaeology or textual criticism since the publication of the NRSV (in 1989) that the

NIV took advantage of? No. The NIV I have is also a 1989 edition and is similarly

based mainly on the Biblia Hebraica, like the NRSV. The truth is found in a very

small footnote at the bottom of the page in which this passage appears. This is what

the footnote says:

One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac, most Hebrewmanuscripts eight. [emphases added PT]

Thus the footnote implicitly admits that the balance of evidence favors eight not

eighteen. So why was the latter chosen to be in the main body of the text? Look at the

excerpt from the preface again. Now one can see the relevance of Dan Barkers

comments. This is not all, this tendency to make contradictions in the original texts

disappear by translating it away can be found in other passages in the NIV. Another

example is from II Kings 8:26 / II Chronicles 2:22. Here II Kings 8:26 gives

Ahaziahs age of ascension to the throne as 22 while II Chronicles 2:22 says he was42 when he became King. All the major modern versions support this. Yet the NIV

has simply translated away this contradiction by changing the age given in II

Chronicles to 22!

197


3/8

REMOVING DIFFICULTIES BY TRANSLATING IN SOFT

FOCUS

Sometimes we find that words are paraphrased to remove obvious difficulties that

exist in the original Hebrew text. Take one instance of the warning of God to Adam inGenesis 2:17. I give three different versions below:

Genesis 2:17 KJV

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat it: for in the

day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 2:17 Good News Bible

[E]xcept the tree that gives knowledge of what is good and what is bad. You must

not eat the fruit of that tree; for if you do, you will die the same day.

Genesis 2:17 NRSV[B]ut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in that day

that you eat of it you shall die.

The various translations above give us an idea of what the original Hebrew is saying:

that if Adam were to eat the fruit hell die on that very day. The problem is that Adam

didpartake of the fruit (Genesis 3:6). However he did notdie, in fact he lived to a ripe

old age of 930 (Genesis 5:5)!

The way NIV skirted this difficulty is interesting, watch:

Genesis 2:17 NIV

[B]ut you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you

eat of it you will surely die.

Can you see the theological rabbit being pulled out of the hat? Yes, by translating the

passage in the soft focus mode the specific curse to die on the very same day is no

longer there. Thus a difficulty is removed!

REMOVING REPREHENSIBLE PASSAGES BY

MISTRANSLATION

Some passages in the Bible sound reprehensible. Given below is the passage taken

from II Kings where the prophet Elisha used his powers to curse and kill 42 children.

Just to give the sense of the Hebrew we will give three different translations:

II Kings 2:23-24 KJV

And he went up from thence unto Bethlehem and he was going up by the way,

there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him,

Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on

them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears

out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

198


4/8

II Kings 2:23-24 GNB

Elisha left Jericho to go to Bethel, and on the way some boys came out of a town

and made fun of him. Get out of here, baldy! they shouted. Elisha turned round,

glared at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came

out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces.

II Kings 2:23-24 NRSV

He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some

small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, Go away, baldhead! Go

away, baldhead! When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the

name of the Lord. The two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two

of the boys.

The passage doesnt put Elisha (or God) in good light for both seemed to be

responsible for the murder of 42 children. That little boys or small children are

meant can be seen from the original Hebrew. According to Strongs ExhaustiveConcordance of the Bible the original Hebrew word for little used here is qatan,

which means small in number or young in age, and the word for children here is

naar, which means a boy (or a girl) from infancy to adolescence. In other words, the

passage was talking about little children. We can see that the above three versions

have been quite faithful to the original Hebrew despite the theological difficulties.

The NIV however translated the same passage thus:

II Kings 2:23-24 NIV

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some

youths came out of the town and jeered at him. Go on up, you baldhead they said.

Go on up, you baldhead! He turned round, looked at them and called down a

curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out from the woods

and mauled forty-two of theyouths.

The italics are mine, but its just to emphasize the major change in meaning that has

happened by using youths instead of little children or small boys. Youths

today can mean young men in their early twenties. Suddenly Elishas act does not

lookthatbad. It looks like some gangsters taunted him and he defended himself. Yet

as we see above, youth was not meant in the original Hebrew; as the other versionsattested. Thus by twisting two words completely out of its original meaning the NIV

has managed to skip over another theological difficulty.

LEAVING ERRORS IN TRANSLATION UNCHANGED

Sometimes the editors of the NIV keep dubious translations from older versions. Let

us look at one famous example. This concerns the messianic prophecy of the virgin

birth. Matthew proclaimed that Jesus birth was in fulfillment of an Old Testament

prophecy:

199


5/8

Matthew 1:22-23

And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The

virgin is with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel-

which means God is with us.

The prophecy referred to by the Matthean passage above is in found Isaiah 7:14. Thisis how the passage looks in the King James Version:

Isaiah 7:14 KJV

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, a

bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

At first glance, this looks like an amazing fulfillment of prophecy. Unfortunately, the

KJVs use ofvirgin here is a well-known error in translation.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 of the masoretic text, wrongly translated as

virgin above, is almah. Now almah does not carry any explicit notion of virginity,

meaning simply a young woman of marriageable age. Had Isaiah actually wanted to

convey the prophecy of the virgin birth he would have used the word bethulah, which

does carry the explicit meaning of virgin.

As we will show in chapter 11, Matthew used the Greek translation of the Old

Testament, the Septuagint, which erroneously translated almah as parthenos. Now

parthenos does mean virgin. The correct Greek word that should have been used by

the translators of the Septuagint was neanis. Thus Matthews proclamation was based

on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah.

In fact in modern, more reliable versions, the correct translation for Isaiah 7:14is used. Two examples:

Isaiah 7:14 GNB

Well then, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant

will have a son and will name him Immanuel.

Isaiah 7:14 NRSV

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with

child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The Good News Bible even provides a footnote explaining this:

YOUNG WOMAN: The Hebrew word here translated young woman is not the

specific term for virgin, but refers to any young woman of marriageable age. The

use of virgin in Mat. 1.23 reflects a Greek translation of the Old Testament, made

some 500 years after Isaiah.5

Obviously, the implication of the above translation is enormous. It implied that

Matthew erroneously attributed a non-existent prophecy to Jesus by utilizing a less

than perfect translation of the Hebrew Bible.6Let us look at how the NIV presents the

same passage:

5 Good News Bible (ABS 1976): p673 footnote6 See chapter 7 for a more detailed analysis of this virgin birth prophecy.

200


6/8

Isaiah 7:14 NIV

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and

will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Amazingly, there isnt even a footnote explaining why virgin was used! Again the

implication is obvious. The adherence of the editors/translators of the NIV to biblicalinerrancy made them perpetuate an obvious translation error in Septuagint in order to

keep the prophecy!

ALTERING THE TRANSLATION

UNTIL IT COMES OUT RIGHT

Sometimes the errors in the extant Hebrew text are so obvious that one cannot get it

right with simply changing a word here and there: a major overhaul is required. One

such example is this passage in II Chronicles:

I Chronicles 3:22-24 (NRSV/RSV/KJV)

22 And the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, and Shaphat,six.

23 The sons of Neariah: Elioenai, Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three.

24 The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah,

and Anani, seven.

The relevant line is verse 22. It gives five names for the sons of Shemiah but gives the

total as six! This type of mistake, of course, is one which an inerrant Bible issupposed to be free of.

So this is how the NIV translated the verses above:

I Chronicles 3:22-24 (NIV)

22 Shemaiah and his sons: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat - six in all.

23 The sons of Neriah: Elioenai, Hizkiah and Azrikam three in all.

24 The sons of Elioenai: Hodaviah, Eliashib, Pelaiah, Akkub, Johanan, Delaiah, and

Anani seven in all.

With this translation, the error noted in verse 22 above magically disappears!

However to accomplish this sleight of hand, the original verse has been completely

mutilated. In the original Hebrew text, the format of verse 22 is exactly the same as

verses 23 and 24; they all start with And the sons of as the NRSV, RSV and

KJV correctly translate. It is obvious that, in all three verses, the Chronicler is

counting only the sons without including the fathers. However, by twisting the words

around in verse 22, from And the sons of Shemaiah to Shemiah and his sons, it

looks as though the Chroniclers count of six now includes the father! Yet this

translation is illegitimate and is made purely to rid the Bible of the difficultiesfundamentalists fear so much.

201


7/8

ADDING WORDS INTO THE BIBLE TEXT

On the last page of the Christian Bible we find this warning:

Revelation 22:18

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone

adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

Yet this admonition does not to carry any weight with the editors of NIV; words not

found in the biblical manuscripts are quite freely added when biblical inerrancy seems

to be threatened. In his recent book The Bible in Translation (2001), the respected

textual scholar of Princeton Theological Seminary and chairman of the NRSV

translation committee, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, had this to say about this aspect of the

NIV:

It is surprising that translators [of the NIV] who profess to have a high view of

scripture should take liberties with the text in omitting words, or, more often, by

adding words that are not in the manuscripts...in Jeremiah 7:22 the translators have

inserted the word just for which there is no Hebrew authority. In the New

Testament at Matthew 13:32 concerning the mustard seed, they inserted the word

your (the smallest of all your seeds) and the word now in I Peter 4:6 (the

gospel was preached even to those who are now dead.) - neither of which is in the

Greek text. In I Corinthians 4:9, we find in the NIV a quite considerable

elaboration of what Paul actually wrote: God put us apostles on display at the end

of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena (the two additions have

been italicized here).7

Professor Metzger did not elaborate on why these textually indefensible additions

were made. However the theological implications are clear. Let us look at a couple of

the passages Metzger cited:

First, let us look at Jeremiah 7:22, in which the Lord Almighty speaks:

Jeremiah 7:22 NRSVFor in the day that I brought your ancestors out to the land of Egypt, I did not speak

to them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Jeremiah 7:22 NIV

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just

give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Remember that Metzger mentioned that there is no Hebrew manuscript that supports

this reading in NIV (i.e. the addition of just). Note that this addition changes the

whole meaning of the passage, from negative to positive. The reason the NIVtranslators did so, is easy to see. For God did command the Israelites during the

exodus from Egypt about burnt sacrifices. One example:

7 Metzger, The Bible in Translation: p140-141

202


8/8

Exodus 20:22-24 NRSV

The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites:...You need make for

me only an altar of earth andsacrifice on it yourburnt offerings...

It is obvious then, that in the original Hebrew manuscripts, a blatant contradiction

exists. Here was a passage (Jeremiah 7:22) that explicitly mentioned that God did notgive any command on burnt offerings during the exodus that clearly contradicts

Exodus 20:22-24 which equally explicitly provides a commandment from God about

burnt offerings and sacrifices. Thus to save their doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the

translators added the word just to avoid this very contradiction!

The change made to the passage from Matthew 13:32 is even more blatant. Let us

compare the NRSV and the NIV again here:

Matthew 13:31-32 NRSV

He [Jesus] put before them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like amustard seed that someone took and sowed in the field; it is the smallest of all

seeds...

Matthew 13:31-32 NIV

He told them another parable: The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed

which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your

seeds...[italics added-PT]

The extant Greek manuscripts have Jesus here saying that the mustard is the smallest

of all seeds, as the NRSV faithfully translates. However this statement, that themustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, is agross botanical error. For while it is true

that mustard seeds are small, they are not the smallest. The orchid seed, for instance,

is even smaller.8 Of course the fundamentalist translators of NIV cannot have the

divine Jesus being shown to make such a mistake, so they add the word yourtoseeds,

implying that Jesus was merely talking about the seeds available to this audience!

Again it is important to note that the translators had added a word not found in the

extant Greek manuscripts.

* * * * *

These examples should be enough to caution anyone about thinking that all Bible

versions are the same. Some have theological preconceptions built-into the

translation.9

8 According to my copy of the Guinness Book of World Records, the smallest seeds are

those of the epiphytic orchids. Each seed weighs in at approximately 0.0000008 grams!9 Other fundamentalist versions such as The Book(and theLiving Bible, on which The

Book is based) have similar methods of skirting through theological difficulties. Those

who are interested to explore this further can consult the bookFundamentalism: Hazards

and Heartbreaks by Rod Evans and Irwin Berent published by Open Court publishing.

203

not all versions are created equal

Documents