A New Translation of the Bible

Do we need a new translation of the Bible? There are several translations of the Bible available today and new ones are being published almost every year. A Bible translation should accurately reflect the original text and help readers understand the true ideas of the author.

In order to make the Bible more reader-friendly to gays and lesbians, a new translation of the Bible will be published soon that is designed to address the needs of the gay community.

Writer and producer Max Mitchell has announced that Revision Studios will publish a pro gay translation of the Bible to be called The Princess Diana Bible. The reason for this Bible is because Mitchell believes that “There is solid evidence that Adam and Eve were both women.”

The following are a few excerpts from the Book of Genesis taken from The Princess Diana Bible:

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make woman in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Ge 1:27 So God created woman in his image, in the image of God created he female.

Ge 2:7 And the LORD God formed woman of the dust of the ground, and breathed into her nostrils the breath of life; and woman became a living soul and God named her Aida.

Ge 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put Aida.

Ge 2:15 And the LORD God took Aida, and put her into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Ge 2:16 And the LORD God commanded Aida, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ge 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that this woman be alone; I will make her a mate.

Ge 2:19 And the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Aida to see what she would call them: and whatsoever Aida called every living creature, that was the name.

Ge 2:20 And Aida gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Aida there was not found a mate for her.

Ge 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Aida, and she slept: and he took one of her ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof;

Ge 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from woman, made he another woman, and brought her unto the first.

Ge 2:23 And Aida said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Eve, because she was taken out of me.

Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a woman leave her mother, and shall cleave unto her wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Ge 2:25 And they were both naked, Aida and her wife, Eve, and were not ashamed.

Ge 4:1 And Eve conceived, and bore Cain, and said, we have created a child in God’s image. And God said the male was different than the woman because he was fathered by the serpent. The man’s member is different than the woman’s because it resembles the head of his father, the serpent.

Ge 4:2 And Eve again conceived with the serpent and bore Cain’s brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

What can one say about The Princess Diana Bible? Maybe here the words of the serpent are relevant to the aims of this translation: “Did God really say these words?” (Genesis 3:1).

William Blake, in his poem “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell,” when writing about the 17th-century English poet John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, said: “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devils party without knowing it.”

Like Milton, it is possible that the authors and publishers of The Princess Diana Bible may be members of the same party “without knowing it.”

Let me know what you think about this new translation of the Bible.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Gay Bible, Princess Diana Bible, Translation

The Voice: A New Translation of the Bible

Thomas Nelson, a Nashville-based Christian publishing house, is announcing the release of a new translation of the Bible called The Voice. The complete New Testament will be released next week and the complete Old Testament will be released by fall 2010.

Here is how David Capes, one of the editors of The Voice, describes the intent of this new Bible in an article published in HoustonBelief.com:

“What we're looking for is almost like the King James version,” he says. “We're looking for a more literary rendering that will stand the test of time. Our take is, if it's written beautifully and calls you into the narrative, that when you finish a chapter you really want to read the next chapter to see what's going to happen, then more people in their 20s and 30s will end up reading the Bible.”

The article continues describing the intent of The Voice:

To ease the reading experience The Voice's translators have introduced several elements. They set up dialogue in screenplay format, with the speaker's name, then his spoken words without quotation marks. That eliminates the “Jesus saids” and “Peter saids.”

Sprinkled liberally throughout are boxed notes that elucidate in non-academic language what a “pharisee” is, for example, or why Jesus sought to recruit disciples. “It helps fill in the blanks for ... people who've never been to the text before,” Capes says.

Here and there the translators add words and phrases not in the original to clarify something. The introduced language is italicized so readers can recognize it for what it is.

The article then describes how The Voice came into being:

The Voice's New Testament project brought together 11 Bible scholars and more than a dozen writers. Contributors communicated sometimes in person, often via e-mail or videoconference. The writers include Brian McLaren and Lauren Winner, best known for their popular books on religion and spirituality, as well as Greg Garrett, who has written secular fiction. Capes and Seay are also contributing writers.

Surprisingly, the writers rather than the scholars were tasked with producing the first draft. "We asked the writers to get started, to work from the original if they could, or if they couldn't, to work from translations, and to provide their own version," Capes says.

Then a scholar, working from the Greek or Hebrew, adjusted the translation to capture the nuances of the original. The draft went back and forth several more times between scholars and writers and reviewers. Typically more than 14 people looked at a book before it was pronounced ready for print.

What is interesting about this new translation is that “writers rather than the scholars were tasked with producing the first draft.” Then, scholars, “working from the Greek or Hebrew, adjusted the translation to capture the nuances of the original.”

This process of translation says a lot about The Voice. However, one has to wait until the release of this new translation to pass judgment on its merits.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, David Capes, The Voice, Translation

God Saw Good

In a previous post, I criticized a new translation of the Bible, The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB). My colleague Blake Water, commenting on what I wrote, called my attention to the first 11 verses of Genesis. To show how awful this translation is, I am quoting Genesis 1:1-11 from the The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible.

The title of this post is taken from Genesis 1:10:

Genesis 1:1-11 (The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible):

Gen 1:1 First, God created the heaven and the land.

Gen 1:2 The land was a chaotic abyss, with darkness over the face of the abyss. The Spirit-wind of God fluttered over the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3 God said, "Light, be!" And light was.

Gen 1:4 God saw the light was-good. God separated between the light and the darkness.

Gen 1:5 God called the light "Day", and he called the darkness "Night". Evening was and morning was; day one.

Gen 1:6 God said, "Expanse, be amidst the waters! Be the separation between the ||waters||!"

Gen 1:7 God made the expanse to separate between the waters with waters under the expanse and above the expanse. So it was.

Gen 1:8 God called the expanse 'Heaven'. Evening was and morning was the second day.

Gen 1:9 God said, "Waters under the heaven: Wait at one place, to see the dry-land!" So it was.

Gen 1:10 God called the dry-land "Land", and the pool of waters he called "Seas". God saw good.

Gen 1:11 God said, "Land, spring-up grass! Cereals, sow seed! Fruit trees, make the kinds of fruit with seed in it over the land!" So it was.

Maybe “God saw good” (v. 10) but I doubt he is very happy with this translation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Strong’s Concordance, Translation

A New Translation of the Bible: The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible

As most biblical scholars and translators know, translating the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into English or any other language is not easy. How does a translator clearly communicate the meaning of Hebrew words to English speaking people? Because the task is difficult, the result is that today we have many different translations of the Bible.

Now the problem has been solved. Let us welcome a new translation of the Bible: the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible. The aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is to solve the problem that different translations of the Bible create for the average reader.

The following press release explains the aim of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible:

The "Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB)" is a completely new concept designed and patented by a scientist and bible-lover who asked the basic question: Why do we have to interrupt our reading of the bible to look up the original meaning of the Hebrew text in a separate book or footnote? Why don't English bible translations match the ancient text?

Author and scientist A. Frances Werner has done her homework. She has documented exactly why you have required to have the extra (and sometimes expensive) tools such as concordances, bible dictionaries and cross-referenced study bibles to decipher most English bible translations. By counting up all the word variations in the Old Testament in over 20 bibles, Werner has demonstrated that translators have unnecessarily complicated matters by not keeping the English consistent with the original Hebrew.

A. Frances Werner designed the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) to be 100% consistent with the ancient texts to simplify bible study. "The word "translinear" has been created to let you know that it is completely consistent between Hebrew and English. Thus, every unique English word matches every unique Hebrew word. Even thought the concept seems incredibly obvious and simple, it hasn't been done in 1500 years of English bible translations. That's why the ARTB is patented. Now you can save some time and money. You don't need to stop and reach for expensive reference books to be assured you finding the accurate word of God."

How did this translator produce a Bible that solved the problems translators have struggled for centuries to solve? How was this done? It was easy! The translator, A. Frances Werner, used Strong’s Concordance to make sure that every Hebrew word was translated in the same way in English. Here is what she says about the Strong’s words number 120 [adam] and 376 [ish]:

What you see is that there are two very distinct words in Hebrew designated by two different Strong's numbers 120 and 376. The major versions primarily reuse the word man for both. The ARTB utilizes the word human for 120 and man for 376 because they are different words.

But the confusion goes deeper. If you look up Strong's number 376 for the NASB, you'll find that not only did the NASB utilize the word man in 66% of the cases, but also words like husband, one, persons, and each, to words like tiller, soldier, tradition, and father for the remaining 33% of the cases--close to 1500 references. This is typical of all modern bible translations.

The Ancient Roots Translinear Bible (ARTB) began as a project to see what the Old Testament really looked like with all the missing words restored. But as they were restored, they were always applied with the rule of 1:1 correspondence to the ancient word. So in ARTB, the word human is utilized 100% of the time for Strong's number 120 [adam] and no other Strong's number.

Any one who has translated from Hebrew to English will agree that the approach taken by Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is very simplistic. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible was first published in 1890. Strong’s Concordance is an index of the Bible based on the translation of the King James Version. The index is designed to help students find a phrase or a word and compare how the same word was used in another section of the Bible.

The major weakness of the Ancient Roots Translinear Bible is its dependence on Strong’s Concordance:

Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds.

It seems to me that this new Bible will be consistent in translating the same Hebrew words into English, but it will be a Bible which will fail to communicate the beauty of the biblical message and the intricacies of the Hebrew language to its readers.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Strong’s Concordance, Translation

Hosea 6:6 and the NIV

Peter Kirk wrote an excellent post in Better Bibles Blog titled “Hosea 6:6: harmonising with NT destroys OT.” His post continues my argument here and here that the NIV is inconsistent in translating some Hebrew words in the book of Hosea.

In his post, Peter shows that the translation of Hosea 6:6 in the NIV was influenced by the translator’s attempt at harmonizing the text in Hosea with the text in Matthew.

Peter wrote:

I suspect that the real reason is because 6:6 is quoted in the New Testament, in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7. But the quotation is taken from the LXX rendering of this verse which is itself apparently a mistranslation. That is, the Greek word eleos used to render Hebrew hesed, here and in most other places in LXX and by Matthew, does not normally have the same meaning as hesed. Rather, it means "mercy", and so in Matthew is correctly translated "mercy". The problem apparently came when the translators decided that the text in Hosea must be adjusted to fit Matthew's use of the verse, as they understood it. Unfortunately by doing so they managed to completely mess up their translation of Hosea, removing the clear markers of cohesion in this prophecy and destroying its sense.

Read Peter’s article in its entirety by clicking here.

I agree with Peter’s view. And I also agree with his conclusion: “The NIV Old Testament is sadly marred in a number of places by misplaced attempts to harmonise with the New Testament.”

I encourage you to read Peter’s article.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary.

Tags: Exegesis, Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Translation

Singing the Praises of the NIV

In my last two posts, I have pointed out inconsistencies in the way the NIV translates some Hebrew words (check here and here). These inconsistencies are not helpful to pastors who preach and teach from the NIV. They are also not helpful to lay people who use only one version of the Bible and do not use other versions to compare translations of specific verses.

Today I want to sing the praises of the NIV. I do not do this very often because in many places, the translation of the NIV does not reflect the intent of the original writers of the biblical text. In previous posts, I have pointed out some of the problems I have with the NIV.

One place where I believe the NIV is superior to the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is in Isaiah 40:9. The verse in these three translations reads as follows:

Isaiah 40:9 (NRSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (RSV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good tidings, lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (ESV): “Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’”

Isaiah 40:9 (NIV): “You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’”

In the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV, it is Zion (Jerusalem) who is commanded to go to a high mountain, and it is Zion (Jerusalem), who, as the herald of good news, is commanded to proclaim to the cities of Judah the advent of YHWH.

These three translations differentiate between the messenger who proclaims good news on God’s behalf in verse 6 and Zion as the messenger who proclaims good news to the cities of Judah.

In Hebrew, the construct form of the verb is difficult to understand. It literally means: “Messenger of Zion.” The Greek Septuagint translates: “The one bringing good news to Zion.” The Latin Vulgate translates: “You who evangelizes Zion.”

The verb mebasseret is a participle feminine. In Hebrew, the participle feminine form of the verb is used to denote an office or an occupation such as sophereth, the office of the sopher or scribe (Ezra 2:55; Neh. 7:5). Thus, the mebasseret in Isaiah 40:9 is a title that should be applied to someone who was appointed to proclaim good news to Zion and not to Zion as the one appointed to proclaim good news to the cities of Judah.

Thus, I believe that the NIV translation, which regards Zion as the receiver, and not the proclaimer of the good news, is a better translation.

The text in Isaiah is not calling upon Jerusalem to make known the good news to the cities of Judah. Rather, the messenger of God is to proclaim the good news to Jerusalem; he is to announce to Jerusalem (and in a sense, to the people of Israel), that after many years of lying desolate and waste, that her time of servitude has come to an end and that the time of release would soon come to pass (Isaiah 40:2).

The translation found in the NRSV, the RSV, and the ESV is awkward, because it gives Jerusalem the duty to proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the exile was over for the nation. It is also awkward to believe that the city of Jerusalem was called to go up to a high mountain and proclaim to the other cities of Judah that the Lord was about to bring the people back to the land.

Thus, when it comes to Isaiah 40:9, I have to sing the praises of the NIV. And this commendation of the NIV has something important to say about Bible translations. Every translation of the Bible has its strengths and weaknesses. No translation of the Bible is perfect, not even the King James Version.

Serious students of the Bible must learn how to use more than one version of the Bible and compare translations to gain a better perspective of the intent of the original writer. When translations differ, and they will differ, Bible students must consult good exegetical commentaries to gain a better perspective of what the biblical writers were trying to communicate to their readers and to us.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, Exegesis, Isaiah 40:9, NIV, Translations, Versions

The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 2

In my post yesterday, I pointed out the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the word da‘at elohim in the book of the prophet Hosea. In that post I mentioned the problems preachers have when using the NIV in trying to arrive at a proper understanding of the biblical text.

Today I want to study another inconsistency found in the NIV that, to me at least, obfuscates the original meaning of the biblical text and sends a confusing message to a reader who cannot read the biblical text in its original language.

Again, in my comparison, I will use three other translations. I will compare the NIV with the NRSV, the ESV, and the TNIV. I could have used other translations, but my focus is on the NIV.

I use the NIV as the model for comparison since many people in my congregation have chosen to use the NIV because of the simplified language it uses to convey the biblical message. To readers whose first language is not English, the NIV is easy to understand. However, because of the inconsistency of the NIV, at times, the message the NIV presents is not as clear as it should be.

Another example of inconsistency in the NIV’s translation of Hosea is found in the use of the word hesed. The following is a translation of hesed in Hosea 4:1:

Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”

In this verse, the NIV translates the word hesed as love. The word hesed is difficult to translate in English because the word has a wealth of meanings in Hebrew. The correct understanding of hesed is attained only in a study of the context of where the word is used. However, as H. J. Zobel has shown in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, 5:47, “the one who receives an act of hesed responds with a similar act of hesed, or at least that the one who demonstrates hesed is justified in expecting an equivalent act in return.”

In a study of the word hesed in Isaiah, “Rereading Isaiah 40:6,” I wrote:

The word hesed is related to the covenant God established with Israel at Sinai. The word hesed refers to the commitment that binds two parties to a relationship.

In his book, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), Gordon Clark says that hesed is an "action performed, in the context of a deep and enduring commitment between two persons or parties" (p. 267). Since faithfulness to a relationship is a character of God, God also expects his people to be as committed to the relationship as he is.

When the word is applied to God, it refers to his faithfulness to the relationship. Thus, the word is best translated "faithfulness," "unfailing love," "loyalty." When the word is applied to human beings, it refers to the loyalty and commitment that people should bring to that relationship. In this case, a good translation of hesed should be "commitment," "loyalty." A strong relationship is built on commitment. Israel should be as loyal and committed to the covenant as God was.

In Hosea 4:1, the NRSV translates hesed as “loyalty;” the ESV as “steadfast love,” and the TNIV as “love.” Love or steadfast love is a good translation, but “loyalty” is a better translation.

On the other hand, the NIV translates the same word, hesed, as “mercy” in Hosea 6:6:

Hosea 6:6 (NIV): “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”

In this verse the translations differ:

NRSV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
ESV: “For I desire steadfast love.”
TNIV: “For I desire mercy.”

In my opinion, the HCSB has a better translation: “For I desire loyalty.”

The word “mercy” does not convey in English what the biblical author was trying to communicate to his audience. In English, the word “mercy” means a compassionate treatment of a person, to be kind or forgiving to someone.

This is not what the biblical writer was trying to convey to his readers. If the NIV had been consistent and used “love” here as it used it in 4:1, the message would be the same. However, the inconsistency of the NIV leaves the reader at a loss because they will believe that what the Lord requires from his people is that they be compassionate to fellow Israelites when in reality God was requiring the people’s loyalty to the relationship established by the covenant.

In Hosea 12:6 the NIV translates hesed as “love” and in Hosea 10:12, the NIV translates hesed as “unfailing love.” At least “unfailing love” in the NIV is better than “kindness” in the ASV, “piety” in the NAB, and “goodness” in the TNK.

There are several lessons to be learned here for pastors who do not know Hebrew. The first lesson is: consult more than one translation when studying the biblical text. Check several translations and compare how the biblical text is translated. Second, consult good exegetical commentaries. Since translations differ, commentaries will also differ. A good exegetical commentary will provide a brief study to the meaning of important theological words in the text.

The third and final lesson is that it is never too late to study biblical languages. No one needs to be a scholar in Hebrew or Greek, but a basic knowledge of the language will help pastors know how to consult an interlinear translation of the biblical text or check the meaning of specific words in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon.

When it comes to biblical translations, the saying remains true: “trust, but verify.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hesed, Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation

The Inconsistencies of the NIV - Part 1

Preaching is not easy. Preaching from the Old Testament is very difficult. The reason many pastors do not preach often from the Old Testament is because they are not familiar with the society and culture of the people who populate the pages of the Bible. Many pastors also are not familiar with the original languages of the biblical text. The art of preaching requires from the preacher a meticulous study of the biblical text.

Since many pastors do not know Hebrew, they depend on an English translation to provide in their language what the original writers were trying to communicate in theirs. And here is where the problems begin. At times, an idea in the biblical text cannot be easily transferred into English. Thus, the reader may not understand all the nuances of a text as the original writer intended.

The worse case scenario is when translators of the biblical text mistranslate the text or fail to convey the correct meaning of the biblical text in their translations. In this case, the pastor who depends on one English translation may fail to understand the real message the original writer was trying to convey to his audience.

I was confronted with this problem again when I was preparing a sermon on Hosea to preach to my congregation a few Sundays ago. Most people in my congregation use the NIV. Since we have many people whose first language is not English, the NIV was chosen to be used in church because the language used in the translation is easy to understand.

The problem with the NIV is that it is not consistent in translating words from Hebrew to English. Most people in the pew will never notice the problems in the NIV because they use only one translation. Most pastors will not notice the problem either unless they read the biblical text in several different translations and compare them or if they use an interlinear Hebrew-English to look at how Hebrew words are used in the translation of the text.

The following is one example taken from the book of Hosea. I will use the NIV first, and then compare the NIV translation with three other translations.

Hosea 4:1 (NIV): “Hear the word of the LORD, you Israelites, because the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: ‘There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land.’”

Here the NIV translates the Hebrew words da‘at elohim as “acknowledgment of God.” The Hebrew word da‘at means “knowledge.” The expression da‘at elohim is an expression used to describe the special relationship between God and Israel that comes out of the covenant relationship. When Hosea said that Israel did not have knowledge of God, the prophet was declaring that Israel had failed to abide by the demands of their covenantal relationship with God.

In English, the word use by the NIV, “acknowledgment,” means “to admit the truth or fact of,” and “a formal declaration of an act.” The NIV translation seems to imply that Israel was declaring that there was no God in the land. The NIV translation is confusing because it does not clearly convey the intent of the original writer.

Both the NRSV and the ESV have “knowledge of God.” Only the NIV and TNIV have “acknowledgment.”

In Hosea 4:6, the NIV reads: “My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests.” Here the NIV translates the same word, da‘at, as “knowledge.” This translation is correct, because what the people lacked and what the people rejected was “knowledge,” not “acknowledgment.”

The NRSV and the ESV translate the word da‘at here as “knowledge” and so does the TNIV. However, both the NIV and the TNIV translated da‘at as “acknowledge” in Hosea 6:6 and as “approval” in Hosea 8:4.

This inconsistency of the NIV is troublesome because the average reader may not understand the usage of the same Hebrew words with different meanings in English. The average reader is certain to miss the emphasis the prophet was trying to convey by his use of da‘at and thus, they fail to grasp the magnitude of the sins of Israel.

Tomorrow I will show another example from Hosea of the inconsistency of the NIV in translating the biblical text.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hosea, NIV, Preaching, Translation

Sennacherib’s Joke

After the death of Sargon II, the king who conquered Samaria, Sennacherib, his son, became the new king of Assyria. Sargon had left his son a large empire. Sargon died in 705 B.C. When Sennacherib became king, he faced uprisings all over the empire. After ascending the throne, Sennacherib led two campaigns against Assyrian enemies in the north. A few years after he became king, Sennacherib led his forces toward Syria and Palestine.

Among the vassals who revolted against Assyria was Hezekiah, king of Judah. In preparing to revolt against Assyria, Hezekiah sought help from Egypt. He also took steps to regain independence by refusing to pay the vassal tribute. According to 2 Kings 18:7, Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him.”

Hezekiah’s plan to revolt against Assyria was motivated by the promises of help from Egypt and Babylon. Hezekiah made a covenant with Egypt, a covenant which the prophet Isaiah called a “covenant with death” (Isaiah 28:18). Trusting in the military help from Egypt (Isaiah 30:1-7; 31:1-3), Hezekiah refused to pay the annual tribute to Assyria.

Sennacherib responded swiftly. First, he subdued many rebellious vassals who had rebelled against him. Then, he came against Hezekiah. According to Assyrian records, Sennacherib destroyed forty-six fortified cities of Judah and deported their population to other parts of the Assyrian empire. As for Hezekiah, Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and kept him in the city “like a bird in a cage.”

It was at that time, that Sennacherib sent a message to Hezekiah. Mario Liverani, in his book, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2005) relates Hezekiah’s response to Sennacherib’s message. In his book, Liverani (p. 148) quotes the annals of Sennacherib to express Hezekiah’s reaction:

"As to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my joke."

At a first reading, it seems that Hezekiah was being very ungrateful. Sennacherib sent him a joke and instead of accepting Sennacherib’s joke, Hezekiah refused it.

I wonder why Hezekiah rejected Sennacherib’s joke. As it is well known, some people just don’t know how to tell a joke, and maybe Sennacherib was one of those individuals. But, when one reads the joke Sennacherib imposed on Hezekiah, one understands the reason Hezekiah was not smiling.

During the invasion, Sennacherib conquered the strong cities of Judah and countless small villages in their vicinity. Sennacherib conquered the fortified cities of Judah and sent the surviving population into exile, a total of 200,150 people, young and old, male and female.

Sennacherib presents a triumphal account of his victory against Hezekiah:

As to Hezekiah, the Jew, . . . I laid siege to his strong cities, walled forts, and countless small villages, and conquered them by means of well-stamped earth-ramps and battering-rams brought near the walls with an attack by foot soldiers, using mines, breeches as well as trenches. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them slaves. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were his city's gate. Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the presents to me as overlord which I imposed upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches inlaid with ivory, nimedu-chairs inlaid with ivory, elephant-hides, ebony-wood, boxwood and all kinds of valuable treasures, his own daughters and concubines.

The tribute Sennacherib demanded from Hezekiah was no joke. It was so excessive that Hezekiah did not have enough silver and gold to pay the tribute; he gave all he had and paid the remainder in kind.

So, where is Sennacherib’s joke? The joke is only in a bad translation of Liverani’s book. The book was translated from Italian into English and the translators made a horrible mistake. Instead of translating: "as to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my yoke," the translators translated: "as to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my joke," thus, playing a joke on the readers.

Translating from one language to another is difficult. For this reason, translators must be very careful not to introduce into the text a foreign concept or a wrong message due to a faulty translation. I am sure the “joke” was unintentional, but for readers who may not be familiar with the annals of Sennacherib, the “joke” is not a joke at all.

Claude Mariottini
Professors of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hezekiah, Mario Liverani, Sennacherib, Translation

Rereading Micah 6:4: Miriam, A Leader in Israel

Feminist hermeneutic has made an impact on biblical scholarship because it has demonstrated to interpreters that the biblical text reflects the patriarchal views of the society which gave birth to the text. In addition, feminist interpreters have shown that some of these same patriarchal values and concerns have affected biblical translations.

Feminist writers like to emphasize that the stories in the Bible were written by men for men. In many stories about women in the Old Testament, women remain nameless, as in the case of Jephthah’s daughter and the concubine that was raped and then dismembered or they remain voiceless, their voices only heard through the voice of the male redactor.

The portrayal of Miriam in the biblical text may demonstrate how the biblical writers lessened her influence as one of the leaders of the Israelite community at the time Israel journeyed through the wilderness.

The purpose of this study is to look at Miriam and how she is portrayed in the biblical text and then focus on Micah 6:4 and how the NIV portrays Miriam in its translation of that text.

Miriam appears in five books of the Old Testament: Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Chronicles, and Micah. Her name appears 15 times in these books, but only 13 in the NIV. On two occasions, in Numbers 12:10 and Numbers 12:15, the NIV uses the pronoun “she” instead of using Miriam’s name, as do most translations.

In Miriam’s first appearance in the biblical text, she is the nameless sister of Moses who watches him on the waters of the Nile. She is called only “his sister” (Exodus 2:4). In this text the reader can see the initiatives taken by Miriam: Miriam speaks to Pharaoh’s daughter and offers to find someone to take care of the child. Because of her, Moses lived his formative years with his own mother. Because of Miriam, Moses lives and does not die. Miriam saves her brother before he can save a single Hebrew.

In Exodus 15:20, Miriam is calledהנביאה “the prophetess.” A prophet (נביא) is a person called by God. Miriam was called by God to lead the people together with Moses and Aaron. Miriam was assigned a prophetical role because she led the community in celebrating God’s victory over the Egyptian army:

“Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exodus 15:21).

And yet, the song of Miriam has been attributed to Moses:

“Then Moses and the people of Israel sang this song to the LORD, saying, 'I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea'” (Exodus 15:1).

Some scholars have proposed that Miriam’s song was a response to Moses’ song. However, a critical review of Moses’ song in Exodus 15 reveals that the song was written many years after the events. Miriam’s song may be an old composition celebrating Israel’s crossing on the sea. Moses received the credit for the song, but it was Miriam who led Israel in celebrating God’s victory.

In Numbers 12:1-15 there is a controversy over the issue of leadership. In Numbers 12:2, Aaron and Miriam asked Moses: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:12). However, Numbers 12:1 attributes the controversy to questions about Moses’ Cushite wife.

The text is not clear on the nature of the conflict, but it seems that Miriam was raising an issue that reflected a concern in the community. Although both Aaron and Miriam are involved in this controversy, only Miriam was punished as a result of this challenge to Moses’ leadership. The public nature of her punishment may indicate that the issue was of interest to the whole community.

That Miriam was a leader in Israel is clearly seen in Micah 6:4: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

In this text Miriam is named as one of the leaders of Israel, together with Moses and Aaron, whom God sent to lead the people out of Egypt. The prophet Micah lists Moses, Aaron, and Miriam as the three leaders of Israel.

Thus, Micah’s statement reflects an ancient tradition that affirms that Miriam had a very significant leadership role in early Israelite history, a role that in later writing was downgraded partly in order to promote Moses as the prominent leader of Israel. Although the biblical text refers to Moses and Aaron as the leaders of the community, the text in Micah 6:4 reveals that Miriam was their equal.

Anderson and Freeman acknowledge the importance of Micah’s statement. They wrote: “What makes Micah’s simple statement so remarkable, and so puzzling, is the fact that nowhere in the tradition are the three siblings presented in a shared leadership role” (p. 519).

However, the NIV’s translation of Micah 6:4 looks like an attempt to diminish Miriam as a leader in Israel. The NIV translates: “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 NIV). The same translation is found in the TNIV.

This translation does not reflect the biblical text. All the other translations reflect the Hebrew text: “For I brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses, Aaron, and Miriam” (Micah 6:4 ESV).

The translation of the NIV takes away the unique leadership role Miriam had in the community. By separating Aaron and Miriam from Moses, the NIV elevates Moses’ position (“I sent Moses to lead you”) and diminishes Miriam almost to an afterthought (“also . . . Miriam”).

The leadership role of Miriam is also diminished in the biblical text. In Psalm 77:20 the name of Miriam is omitted from the list of leaders in Israel: “You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.” Where is Miriam? Her position as a leader of Israel was marginalized by the Psalmist. The memory of what Miriam did for the community was forgotten, consigned to an ideology that minimized the contribution of women to their society.

Reading and interpreting the biblical text is not easy. At times, a translator, in order to make sense of a text, applies methods of interpretation that may reflect cultural and theological biases.

The NIV diminishes Miriam by omitting her name twice. Furthermore, the addition of the word “also” by the translators of the NIV and TNIV gives a slant to the text that serves to undervalue the role of Miriam as a leader in Israel. I do not know whether this addition to the text was intentional. However, the resulting translation has a strong theological overtone, one which may reflect an undercurrent of patriarchy.

In my judgment, the translation of Micah 6:4 in the NIV and the TNIV is not acceptable.

Reference: Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Aaron, Femenist Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Micah 6:4, Miriam, Moses, Translation