• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mistranslation in Hebrews

pearl

Well-Known Member
I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?

The citation from Heb follows the LXX in all but a few points. In vv 8-9 the Greek diatithemi, "dispose" which the LXX uses for God's establishing the new and old covenants, is replaced by, respectively, synteleo "conclude" and poieo "make". Some have maintained that the latter is a significant change and throws light on the vexed question whether in 9: 15-18 the author, as most believe, uses different meanings of diatheke; "covenant" and "testament".
In the Church's declaration Nostra Aetate, the Council warned "the Jews should not be presented as rejected....by God, as if such views followed from the Holy Scriptures."
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?
The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity. A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard Version

It is the Christian Bible of choice for serious scripture studies as it mostly uses the closest translation of a particular word even if it reads rather clumsily.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That's just not true.
Yes it is. It's Christians scholars that claim Jews deliberately changed the text. No other scholars say that. All scholars except Christians scholars agree that an original language manuscript is going to be more accurate than a translation, just as an original document is going to be more reliable than a photocopy.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity. A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard Version

It is the Christian Bible of choice for serious scripture studies as it mostly uses the closest translation of a particular word even if it reads rather clumsily.
Virtually every Christian translation of Jeremiah 31:32 says "husband." Go to Biblehub.com and view the FLOOD of Christian translations all saying "husband".
Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt--a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
My 33 years as a Christian, until 2003, is shredded now. From my own experience, I don't see most Christians as scholars in any sense of the word. I see Islamic doctrine as being highly politicised. I think the Fatwas have greatly deluded the spirit of what Muhammad PBUH was directed to teach. As to Judaism, I am not ready to try to observe 622 rules. So, it appears that I am on my own; a most uncomfortable position to be in.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
My 33 years as a Christian, until 2003, is shredded now. From my own experience, I don't see most Christians as scholars in any sense of the word. I see Islamic doctrine as being highly politicised. I think the Fatwas have greatly deluded the spirit of what Muhammad PBUH was directed to teach. As to Judaism, I am not ready to try to observe 622 rules. So, it appears that I am on my own; a most uncomfortable position to be in.
How about just believe in God and be a good descent human being? I think you are a wonderful person. Jews love righteous Gentiles.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
How about just believe in God and be a good descent human being? I think you are a wonderful person. Jews love righteous Gentiles.

Mashallah. My biggest concern is that I have a lifetime of programing about the identity of Jesus, and lots of condemnation for those who do not fall into lock step with the dogma. Pondering, pondering.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Yes it is. It's Christians scholars that claim Jews deliberately changed the text. No other scholars say that. All scholars except Christians scholars agree that an original language manuscript is going to be more accurate than a translation, just as an original document is going to be more reliable than a photocopy.
Jewish scholars also compare the Mesoratic with the Septuagint because of scribal errors. That's little copyist mistakes that can occur; as they admit. This is because for such a long time there was no printing press. Just scribes copying by hand.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Jewish scholars also compare the Mesoratic with the Septuagint because of scribal errors. That's little copyist mistakes that can occur; as they admit. This is because for such a long time there was no printing press. Just scribes copying by hand.
Give me an example of a well known Jewish (not messianic Jewish) scholar who believes that there are instances where the Septuagint is correct and the Hebrew text incorrect in terms of an entire word being changed. I want name, credential, verse and word, and a citation online that I can check.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Virtually every Christian translation of Jeremiah 31:32 says "husband." Go to Biblehub.com and view the FLOOD of Christian translations all saying "husband".
Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt--a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
I wasn't referring to that as I didn't even look it up, but what I did refer you to is that the NIV is not a good translation, especially when compared to the RSV. However, even the RSV I have found to have questionable translations at times, and maybe what you cite above might be just another one of those cases.

Translating ancient texts is very difficult to say the least, but the NIV was created by Zondervan purposely to reflect Evangelical teachings.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
The NIV is not a very good translation as the publisher was quite open in that its translations reflect Evangelical teachings, thus not objectivity.

A far better translation is the RSV, which can be found here on line with the added benefit as being able to be used as a search engine: Bible: Revised Standard Version

It is the Christian Bible of choice for serious scripture studies as it mostly uses the closest translation of a particular word even if it reads rather clumsily.

I agree.. Evangelicals have hijacked the scriptures.... and that has been done before .. Notably in the Servants Song and Hosea 11:1.

I'm a Christian, but this bit of chicanery is embarrassing.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IndigoChild said " Exactly, it is from a mere translation, the Septuagint. Every scholar knows that the original language is superior to any translation."

I think a contextual point needs to be made regarding the LXX (septuagint) and the Masoretic. BOTH versions are JEWISH translations. The LXX was a translation made BY Jews for Greek speaking Jews in approx 300 b.c. whereas the Masoretic, as an official Jewish Text was created almost a millenia later. The point is simply that Both versions are Jewish versions and neither are in their original language. The discussion seems to indicate that there was a "christian" LXX and a "Jewish" Masoretic Bible. This is incorrect.

The translational errors in both the LXX and in the Masoretic text were not created by Christians, but by pre-existing textual corruptions and by their Jewish Translators. For example, the Jewish Massorah gives us lists of example errors and example of changes made to the text in the process of translation by Jewish translators. This is NOT to say Christian translators did not make similar mistakes in the creation of Christian literature, they did.

Clear
δρνετζω
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I wasn't referring to that as I didn't even look it up, but what I did refer you to is that the NIV is not a good translation, especially when compared to the RSV. However, even the RSV I have found to have questionable translations at times, and maybe what you cite above might be just another one of those cases.

Translating ancient texts is very difficult to say the least, but the NIV was created by Zondervan purposely to reflect Evangelical teachings.
So ALLLL of the Christian translations that translate it husband are wrong? My my that would say something pretty awful about Christian translators.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am using the New International Version Christian Bible, as Christians are my audience.

This is about the book of Hebrews quoting from the prophet Jeremiah about the New Covenant.

Jeremiah 31:32
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

Hebrews 8:9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

I have a pretty good idea what's up. I'm just wondering, my Christian friends, what do YOU think is up?


I am not sure what the point of the O.P. is.

If the Jewish version of 300 b.c. phrase was "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", (however one wants to express the principle of "suspending care for") etc and the Christian writer of Hebrews uses the same greek phrase and word for "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", as the earlier Jewish version, then what is the claim of error in the O.P.?

Is the O.P. saying the Jewish translation of 300 b.c. (LXX / Septuagint) made a mistake but the Jewish translation of medieval times (masoretic) corrected the mistake?

Is the O.P. trying to say the Christian writer who is quoting a greek version should NOT have quoted the earlier Jewish version (LXX)?

Is the O.P. saying the idiom which the Masoretic uses for "husband" is actually technically correct, or that, since the masoretic doesn't technically say "husband" in hebrew, that the later Jews mistranslated?

Can you explain the point the O.P. is attempting to make?

Clear
φιτζφιω
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I am not sure what the point of the O.P. is.

If the Jewish version of 300 b.c. phrase was "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", (however one wants to express the principle of "suspending care for") etc and the Christian writer of Hebrews uses the same greek phrase and word for "I neglected (ημελεσα) them" or " I turned from (ημελεσα) them", as the earlier Jewish version, then what is the claim of error in the O.P.?

Is the O.P. saying the Jewish translation of 300 b.c. (LXX / Septuagint) made a mistake but the Jewish translation of medieval times (masoretic) corrected the mistake?

Is the O.P. trying to say the Christian writer who is quoting a greek version should NOT have quoted the earlier Jewish version (LXX)?

Is the O.P. saying the idiom which the Masoretic uses for "husband" is actually technically correct, or that, since the masoretic doesn't technically say "husband" in hebrew, that the later Jews mistranslated?

Can you explain the point the O.P. is attempting to make?

Clear
φιτζφιω
The Jewish version is in HEBREW.

The Hellenistic LXX, being a mere translation, is simply not going to be as good. Where they differ, the choice should ALWAYS be for the Hebrew. Yes, I'm saying that when the LXX replaced "husband," it was a mistranslation.

And THAT calls into question the "inerrancy" claims for the Christian scriptures.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IndigoChild

1) NATIONAL HEBREW (the language of the Masoretic) is NOT the original language of the texts.
The LXX and the Masoretic are BOTH translations from texts written in various original languages. Both were taken from earlier forms of the text and whatever languages the texts were written in and the LXX was translated by Jews into Greek in 300 b.c. and the text of the Masoretic was translated by Jews into National Hebrew almost a thousand years later.

Square script National Hebrew did not exist at the time the original texts were written, rather the original texts were presumably written in the languages of the various writers.


2) Just as Alexandrian Jews of 300 b.c. did not speak Hebrew, other Jews could not write in National Hebrew before it existed.
For example, Moses did not write in national Hebrew since national hebrew (the language of the Masoretic) did not exist at this time. Abraham, from UR, would have spoken and written in his language, the language of Ur or another language. National Hebrew did not exist at this time. Obviously the Semitic settlers of Canaan from which the Jews came did NOT speak hebrew but spoke the languages of their time and place.


3) There were multiple different versions of the texts ancientyly and no one knows what the original texts said.
For example, The talmud itself tells us that there were multiple versions (3 versions) of the hebrew text found at the time of the rebuilding of the temple and another (fourth) version was made from them. What did the actual, original text say? No one can say.

The point is that the National Hebrew version we call the Masoretic is not the original text but it is a translation of translations of various texts INTO National Hebrew just as the septuagint was translated into Greek.


4) Your English example of Old testament Hebrew text is also in technical error.
If the Old Testament texts in their various languages (in the pre-national hebrew time) were used to translate one bible into Greek and one into national Hebrew, then what is the point of the O.P. on this specific scripture? Especially since the Masoretic does NOT, technically use the word "husband" in the hebrew.

You are using yet another language (english) but your version that you have given us is not, technically, what the Hebrew (Masoretic) itself actually says.

If the Jewish texts contained errors then you are simply comparing one translation (the masoretic) having errors with another translation (the LXX) having errors. What is the point of your post?

Clear
φιτωακω
 
Last edited:

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
IndigoChild

1) NATIONAL HEBREW (the language of the Masoretic) is NOT the original language of the texts.............................
I need to ask your indulgence. There is a great deal of what I would label as misinformation in your post, but until I regain the full use of my right arm and my right hand - probably not for several weeks at the earliest - the amount of typing I can do is severely constrained.

Please forgive me for not going into detail at this time.
 
Top