Not All Versions Are Created Equal

• The source documents. As there is not a single extant original (or autograph) copy of any of the books in the Bible, the reliability of the translation is affected directly by the quality of the source documents. For instance, the King James Version, or Authorized Version, or KJV for short, which was first published in 1611, is no longer considered reliable since it was not based on ancient texts. Modern versions are based on newly discovered, more ancient texts and well as scientific textual studies. So in general, more modern versions are more reliable than older ones.[1]
• As fundamentalism grows, the second issue, that of theological preconception becomes very important.This is what we will be looking at in depth on this page.

The most reliable English translation of the Bible today has to be the New Revised Standard Version, or NRSV, published in 1990 It took into account all the major source texts, including the Biblia Hebraica (the massoretic text), the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies. More importantly the translation was done by scholars from various denominations (Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox) and even include Jewish scholars. Thus there was no theological axe grinding in its translation. Of course, other good versions abound; examples include the Revised Standard Version (RSV) which is the precursor of the NRSV, the Good News Bible and the New English Bible (NEB).

Fundamentalist versions, however, are a different matter. Fundamentalist bibles include versions such as The Book, The Living Bible and The New International Version (NIV). These are translated mainly by people who believe in Biblical inerrancy and the complete infallibility of the Bible. Given below is the quote taken from the Translator's Preface of the NIV:

In working towards this goals, the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's word in written form.[2]

As the ex-fundamentalist, 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 "God's word". [3]

Let us see how this commitment to biblical infallibility affected the translation.

• Some contradictions in the Bible are removed simply by the translators finding the few (or even one) text that do not have these contradictions.
• Sometimes sentences are made to be vague when the original Hebrew is specific.
• Sometimes a whole new sense of the word, not present in the original Hebrew, is used.
• Sometimes a traditional errors in translation are left unchanged to safeguard theological doctrines.
• Sometimes the translators boldly added words not found in the original documents to save their precious doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

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 eight years 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 presented 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 in Jerusalem 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 passages appears. This is what the footnote says:

One[talics mine] Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac, most Hebrew manuscripts eight.

Thus the footnote implicitly admits that the balance of evidence favours 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 Barker's comments. This is not all, look through the passages with contradictions, and many have been treated similarly.

Back to the top

Removing Difficulties by Translating in "Soft Focus"

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 gives us an idea of what the original Hebrew is conveying, that if Adam were to eat the fruit he'll die on that very day. The problem is that Adam did partake of the fruit (Genesis 3:6). However he did not die, 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!

Back to the top

Removing Reprehensible Passages by Mistranslation

Back to the top

Leaving Errors in Translation Unchanged

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 of the massoretic 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 have shown in detail elsewhere, 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 Matthew's proclaimation was based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah.

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

Isaiah 7:14 Good News Bible 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.[4] [a]

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. Let us look at how the NIV presents the same passage:

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, the isn't even a footnote explaining why virgin was used! Again the implication is obvious. The adherence of the editors/translators of the NIV to Biblical inerrancy made them perpetuate an obvious translation error in Septuagint in order to "keep" the prophecy!

Back to the top

Adding Words into the Bible Text

In his most recent book The Bible in Translation (Baker Book House 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 italicised here). [5]

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 NRSV For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of 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 NIV translators did so, is easy to see. For God did command the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt about burnt sacrifices. One example:

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 and sacrifice on it your burnt 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 not gave any commands 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 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 a mustard 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 the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds, is a gross 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.[b] Of course the fundamentalist translators of NIV cannot have the divine Jesus being shown to make such a mistake, so they the word your to seeds, 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 translations are the same. Some have theological preconceptions built-into the translation.

Other fundamentalist versions such as The Book (and the Living Bible, on which The Book is based) have similar methods of skirting through theological difficulties. To those who are interested to explore this further can consult the book Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks by Rod Evans and Irwin Berent published by Open Court publishing.[6]

Back to the top

Notes

References

Back to the top