• 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!

Was Habbukuk 2:4 mistranslated?

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
So, there has been a couple of millenial long conspiracy to thwart true understanding of Scripture by a vast majority of translators? Is this your position?

I would not express it that way. . . but I do think Christians have quoted the Tanakh in an effort to support Xian theology, and many of these quotes involve mistranslations. A prominent example is Isaiah 7 quote alleging Jesus would be born to a virgin, etc., etc. Moreover, I think Christians have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the Tanakh supports the Greek NT.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
I would not express it that way. . . but I do think Christians have quoted the Tanakh in an effort to support Xian theology, and many of these quotes involve mistranslations. A prominent example is Isaiah 7 quote alleging Jesus would be born to a virgin, etc., etc. Moreover, I think Christians have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the Tanakh supports the Greek NT.
So you are saying there is a long line of accepted and predomiant translators and theologians that are liars?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
If they believe in their Christian faith and their helpful translations they are not liars but only mistaken and incorrect, IMO

It has nothing to do with Christianity, the translation/interpretation as it is usually presented is the most widely accepted version.

Not every translator has a bias. ;)
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
It has nothing to do with Christianity, the translation/interpretation as it is usually presented is the most widely accepted version.

Not every translator has a bias. ;)

Hebrew translations of the Tanakh are often different from Christian translations as is the case of Isaiah 7.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The thing about Habbukuk 2:4 is that it is exactly the same word for word in Hebrew, the standard interpretation makes sense to most Biblicists, Christian, Jewish, or otherwise, so you're pretty much going to have to "prove" that your interpretation is the correct one, using other verses.

Good luck, because I don't think OT Scripture backs up your theory.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Well, I already know your opinion but I'd like feedback from others as well, if that's OK with you.


2:4 Look, the one whose desires are not upright will faint from exhaustion, 12
but the person of integrity 13 will live 14 because of his faithfulness. 15
https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Habakkuk+2

Translator's notes:

12 tn The meaning of this line is unclear, primarily because of the uncertainty surrounding the second word, עֲפְּלָהapÿlah). Some read this as an otherwise unattested verb עָפַלafal, “swell”) from which are derived nouns meaning “mound” and “hemorrhoid.” This “swelling” is then understood in an abstract sense, “swell with pride.” This would yield a translation, “As for the proud, his desires are not right within him” (cf. NASB “as for the proud one”; NIV “he is puffed up”; NRSV “Look at the proud!”). A multitude of other interpretations of this line, many of which involve emendations of the problematic form, may be found in the commentaries and periodical literature. The present translation assumes an emendation to a Pual form of the verb עָלַףalaf, “be faint, exhausted”). (See its use in the Pual in Isa 51:20, and in the Hitpael in Amos 8:13 and Jonah 4:8.) In the antithetical parallelism of the verse, it corresponds to חָיָה (khayah, “live”). The phrase לֹא יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ (lo’ yoshrah nafsho bo), literally, “not upright his desire within him,” is taken as a substantival clause that contrasts with צַדִּיק (tsadiq, “the righteous one”) and serves as the subject of the preceding verb. Here נֶפֶשׁ (nefesh) is understood in the sense of “desire” (see BDB 660-61 s.v. נֶפֶשׁ for a list of passages where the word carries this sense).
13 tn Or “righteous.” The oppressed individuals mentioned in 1:4 are probably in view here.
14 tn Or “will be preserved.” In the immediate context this probably refers to physical preservation through both the present oppression and the coming judgment (see Hab 3:16-19).
15 tn Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָהemunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.” The antecedent of the suffix has been understood in different ways. It could refer to God’s faithfulness, but in this case one would expect a first person suffix (the original form of the LXX has “my faithfulness” here). Others understand the “vision” to be the antecedent. In this case the reliability of the prophecy is in view. For a statement of this view, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL), 111-12. The present translation assumes that the preceding word “[the person of] integrity” is the antecedent. In this case the Lord is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. In contrast to these innocent people, those with impure desires (epitomized by the greedy Babylonians; see v. 5) will not be able to withstand God’s judgment (v. 4a).

https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Habakkuk+2

The point is that righteousness is a function of conduct rather than mere faith or belief. As James said "Faith without works is dead.:"
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Jonathan, this is also one I agree with and have for a long time. All one has to do is look at the verse in Hebrews 2:4, then find the original in Habakkuk 3. A lexicon or concordance along with context will reveal that the original sense of the word is 'Faithfulness'.

That does not mean the author of Hebrews has mistranslated, since the Greek word 'Pistis' represents either faith or faithfulness. It means that the English ought to be translated with the original Habakkuk in mind and not just the Greek Koine.

It should be pointed out that not all NT verses with the Greek 'Pistis' can be translated as 'Faithfulness', but some definitely should that are not. I'd contend, for instance, that Matthew 17:20 ought to be read in English as 'Faithfulness as small as a mustard seed' not 'Faith'. It would be a lot less confusing.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
So you are saying there is a long line of accepted and predomiant translators and theologians that are liars?
Many times I've heard Christians say, "Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or He is Lord!" What do they base this on? The NT. Who wrote it? Were they lunatics or liars? Maybe not, maybe just little white-lies. Little things like "massaging" a verse or two. No big thing, it's for the greater good, isn't it? And, by using the Septuagint they already had built in changes. On top of that, did Paul use partial quotes to prove his points? Yes he did, and what was his point?

He makes it clear that even if you could follow the Law perfectly, but you can't, the Law can't "saved" you. But, what a minute? Save you from what? Hell? The devil? From the curse of original sin? If those things were the problem, then why for all those years leading up to Jesus did God insist that the Jews at least try and keep the Law? Why didn't God say, "Forget the Law, believe on me and I will be your salvation. If you sin believe on me and repent, and I will forgive you." I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know for sure, but aren't there some verses that say things like that in the Hebrew Bible but along with it, keep the Law? If so, what was Paul trying to do? Was he trying to undermine the authority of the Law?

Yes he was and good for him, because I like going to the beach on Saturday and chopping wood and making a fire and having hot dogs made out of pig parts. I want to eat lobster once in a while. I'm not Jewish, anyway. I don't want those archaic laws imposed on me. I believe; I'm saved, and that settles it. So thank you Paul for making it okay to disregard the Laws God gave to the Hebrew people. It's not like He wrote them in stone or nothing. Whatever Paul says Habakkuk meant to say is alright by me. I know for a fact that Paul's not a liar or some whack job. He got his views direct from God and Jesus. I know this, because Paul says so himself in God's Word.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Yes he was and good for him, because I like going to the beach on Saturday and chopping wood and making a fire and having hot dogs made out of pig parts. I want to eat lobster once in a while. I'm not Jewish, anyway. I don't want those archaic laws imposed on me. I believe; I'm saved, and that settles it. So thank you Paul for making it okay to disregard the Laws God gave to the Hebrew people. It's not like He wrote them in stone or nothing. Whatever Paul says Habakkuk meant to say is alright by me. I know for a fact that Paul's not a liar or some whack job. He got his views direct from God and Jesus. I know this, because Paul says so himself in God's Word.

I agree.
That aside, Saul-Paul may have actually been trying to create a more cohesional aspect between Judaism and 'Christianity', the differences may have been greater than He was making it out to be, not less. Especially if there was some reason to maintain the Judaism-->Christianity theme to some extent, instead of the other way around (the usual theory).
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I agree.
That aside, Saul-Paul may have actually been trying to create a more cohesional aspect between Judaism and 'Christianity', the differences may have been greater than He was making it out to be, not less. Especially if there was some reason to maintain the Judaism-->Christianity theme to some extent, instead of the other way around (the usual theory).
Paul sure did a good enough job of maintaining the theme. His letters changed the world. Did he knowingly manipulate the verses he used? I think he did, but I think he really thought it was for the better and that God was guiding him. But, you know, the whole Christian thing, with hell, the devil and the rest, really tied in the pagan religions very well also. That's what I'm questioning. It fits too well with the pagan religions. Was Paul that smart to find a way around the Law, a stumbling block, and get a simple way for non-Jews to join the new religious movement? That's what it seems like to me. What do you think?
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Many times I've heard Christians say, "Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic or He is Lord!" What do they base this on? The NT. Who wrote it? Were they lunatics or liars? Maybe not, maybe just little white-lies. Little things like "massaging" a verse or two. No big thing, it's for the greater good, isn't it? And, by using the Septuagint they already had built in changes. On top of that, did Paul use partial quotes to prove his points? Yes he did, and what was his point?

He makes it clear that even if you could follow the Law perfectly, but you can't, the Law can't "saved" you. But, what a minute? Save you from what? Hell? The devil? From the curse of original sin? If those things were the problem, then why for all those years leading up to Jesus did God insist that the Jews at least try and keep the Law? Why didn't God say, "Forget the Law, believe on me and I will be your salvation. If you sin believe on me and repent, and I will forgive you." I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know for sure, but aren't there some verses that say things like that in the Hebrew Bible but along with it, keep the Law? If so, what was Paul trying to do? Was he trying to undermine the authority of the Law?

Yes he was and good for him, because I like going to the beach on Saturday and chopping wood and making a fire and having hot dogs made out of pig parts. I want to eat lobster once in a while. I'm not Jewish, anyway. I don't want those archaic laws imposed on me. I believe; I'm saved, and that settles it. So thank you Paul for making it okay to disregard the Laws God gave to the Hebrew people. It's not like He wrote them in stone or nothing. Whatever Paul says Habakkuk meant to say is alright by me. I know for a fact that Paul's not a liar or some whack job. He got his views direct from God and Jesus. I know this, because Paul says so himself in God's Word.

Interesting that Paul can be a self-proclaimed apostle, but even Jesus says:
Jhn 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Jhn 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

Jhn 5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.

Jhn 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.

Jhn 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

Jhn 5:36 But I have greater witness than [that] of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

Jhn 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Jhn 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Jhn 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

Jhn 5:41 I receive not honour from men.

Jhn 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

Jhn 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Is this a prophecy about Paul, who came in his own name and was so well accepted his books form the majority of works in the NT?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Paul sure did a good enough job of maintaining the theme. His letters changed the world. Did he knowingly manipulate the verses he used? I think he did, but I think he really thought it was for the better and that God was guiding him. But, you know, the whole Christian thing, with hell, the devil and the rest, really tied in the pagan religions very well also. That's what I'm questioning. It fits too well with the pagan religions. Was Paul that smart to find a way around the Law, a stumbling block, and get a simple way for non-Jews to join the new religious movement? That's what it seems like to me. What do you think?

Well it might seem a bit different from the usual ideas but I think there is a possibility that Saul-Paul actually was taking the Scripture closer to what Jesus's teachings actually were, that's why I agreed with your, (I think) somewhat sarcastic but fairly accurate paragraph that represents my perspective for all intents and purposes except perhaps a little less extreme..but not much.
If anything I sort of get the "revisionism" vibe from the Gospels more than the Epistles or Acts, I'm not saying I don't share your overall skepticism, I do, in fact I don't even believe in baptism if that gives you an idea, but Saul-Paul to me is more about the manner in which he portrays Jesus and the teachings, not the other themes so much.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Interesting that Paul can be a self-proclaimed apostle... was so well accepted his books form the majority of works in the NT?
Paul is Christianity. It's amazing how few verses in the NT are things that supposedly Jesus said. Paul was successful at converting non-Jews, how did Jews take his teachings? Did Jewish Christians question how Paul twisted Jewish Scripture? I know they do now. Back then, what did the Jewish Christians do on the Sabbath? Were they at some point forced to go to "church" on Sunday? Jews put a great deal of importance on studying the Bible, but the Christians stopped allowing the common people to read the Bible. Did the Church at some point take away the Bibles from the Jewish Christians? Is that what Paul intended?
In Habakkuk 2:4 my NASB has faith in the text and faithfulness in the sidebar. Big difference. If Paul is saying that faith in God is what does the "saving" that's fine. But then what? Christians do have commandments also. Doesn't a true follower of Jesus faithfully obey his commandments? How would that be different than a Jew loving God and serving God and faithfully keeping His Law? What was Paul's intention? It seems like Paul did intend to get rid of most of the Jewish Laws and did intend to interpret the Hebrew Scripture in a way to minimize, or actually nullify, the importance of the Law.
 
Top