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 2 3 4

Metzger, Companion to the Bible: p758-763 NIV, p: xxxix Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: p269 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version accessed on October 1, 2007

196

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 texts of 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 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 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 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 passage appears. This is what the footnote says:
One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac, most Hebrew manuscripts 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 was 42 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

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 in Genesis 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 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!

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

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 Exhaustive Concordance 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 the youths.

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 look that bad. 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 versions attested. 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

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 Immanuelwhich means God is with us.

The prophecy referred to by the Matthean passage above is in found Isaiah 7:14. This is 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 of virgin 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 7:14 is 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.6 Let us look at how the NIV presents the same passage:
5 6

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

200

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 biblical inerrancy 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 is supposed 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 difficulties fundamentalists fear so much.

201

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 NRSV For 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 NIV translators did so, is easy to see. For God did command the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt about burnt sacrifices. One example:

Metzger, The Bible in Translation: p140-141

202

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 give 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 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.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 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 versions are the same. Some have theological preconceptions built-into the translation. 9

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! 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. 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.

203