The Word "Sword" in the Old Testament

I have been doing research in preparation to write an article about the sword in the Old Testament. To my amazement (but should I be amazed?), I have discovered that there is little agreement among scholars and English translations on how many times the word “sword” appears in the Old Testament.

The Hebrew word for sword is חֶרֶב , but even the lexicons cannot agree with the number of occurrences of the word “sword” in the Hebrew Bible. Here is what I found:

Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB): 411 times
Koehler-Baumgartner (KB): 410 times
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, following KB: 410 times
Theological Workbook of the Old Testament: 407 times
Lisowski’s Konkordanz: 403 times (unless I missed the count)

In order to see how the English versions handle the word “sword,” I used BibleWorks 7 and searched all the English translations listed there. The results below include the word “sword” in the singular plus the word “swords” in the plural.

Some versions, like the NIV, translates the Hebrew expression “men who drew the sword” as “swordsmen” while the NJB and the NRSV translate the same Hebrew expression as “men bearing arms.” Such a variation in the translation of the Hebrew word is not included in the totals. Other English versions translate the singular word “sword” as plural “swords.” Thus, the total number for each translation will include both the singular and the plural. With this in mind, here are the results:

The American Standard Bible: 428 (singular) + 23 (plural)
The Bible in Basic English: 425 + 38
The Darby Bible: 419 + 25
The Douay-Rheims Bible: 460 + 34
The English Standard Version: 419 + 29
The Geneva Bible: 420 + 26
The Holman Christian Standard Bible: 365 + 33
The Jewish Publication Society: 394 + 17
The King James Version: 429 + 24
The New American Bible: 438 + 31
The New American Standard Bible: 423 + 26
The New English Translation: 294 + 38
The New Jerusalem Bible: 424 + 32
The New King James Bible: 422 + 27
The New Living Bible: 184 + 54
The New Revised Standard Bible: 474 + 37
The Revised Standard Bible: 480 + 34
The Revised Webster Bible: 424 + 24
The Young Literal Translation: 421 + 21

The results above may not be 100% accurate because I did not compare every occurrence of the Hebrew word with its equivalent in English translations. What the numbers above show is the number of times the word “sword” or “swords” appears in an English translation when compared with the number of times the word “sword” or “swords” appear in the Hebrew Bible. It is also possible that the English translations used other Hebrew words and translated them as “sword” or “swords.”

But the results show three important things:

1. English translations are not consistent in translating Hebrew words. It is true that it is impossible to translate consistently word for word from the Hebrew, since no translation is a literal translation of the Hebrew original.

2. It is impossible for a person to depend on one version alone, since is many cases, a translation may not reflect the real intent or the original words of the author or authors who wrote in Hebrew.

3. Whenever a person is doing a study of a biblical word, one must not depend on an English translation alone. Since most people do not have a basic knowledge of Hebrew, it becomes imperative that they consult Hebrew lexicons, commentaries, and other resources in order to gain an accurate meaning of a Hebrew word.

In conclusion, let me say that no one should be shaken by the differences we find in English translations of the Bible. We have to remember that no translation is meant to be a word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek. Rather, the intent of a translation is to provide an accurate understanding of the message of the Bible.

Every translation of the Bible is good and every translation of the Bible has its flaws. No translation of the Bible will translate a certain Hebrew word the way I think it should be translated, but in the end, a translation will carry the message that God cares for us and that he demonstrated his love for us by sending Jesus Christ to reveal the magnitude of God’s love. And that is all we need to know.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Sword, Translations

A Requiem for the TNIV: RIP

In a previous post I reported on Zondervan’s decision to discontinue publishing the Today’s New International Version in 2011. This version of the Bible has gained little support among evangelicals and its demise is a testimony of the failure of the TNIV to find acceptance among pastors and scholars.

Rick Mansfield at This Lamp has an excellent article on the future of the NIV. His post also includes a requiem for the TNIV, from which the above image was taken.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, NIV, TNIV, Translations

Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests”

Last week, in my post on “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” I wrote that after David conquered Jerusalem and made the city the capital of his government, he “incorporated the original inhabitants of Jerusalem into the population of Israel and became their king.”

I also wrote that David became a priest of the people who lived in Jerusalem, “not because he was a Levite, but because he continued the tradition established by Melchizedek.” Then I concluded: “Melchizedek now becomes a type of the Davidic king. The descendants of David will be kings and they will be priests; this is clearly expressed in 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘and David’s sons were priests.’”

The statement in 2 Samuel 8:18 that “David’s sons were priests” is very controversial and even the translations disagree on how to translate the word kohanim (“priests”) in this section of the verse.

The following translations translate the word kohanim in 2 Samuel 8:18 as “priests”:

The Bible in Basic English (BBE), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Bible (NAB), the New English Translation (NET), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Jewish Publication Society (TNK), the New English Bible (NEB), and the Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

Other translations are not willing to accept that David’s sons were priests. Instead, they reinterpret the word and say that David’s sons were his advisors. These are the ways the word kohanim is translated:

“Chief ministers”: the American Standard Version (ASV), the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New King James Version (NKJV).

“Chief officials”: the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB).

“Chief rulers”: the King James Version (KJV), the Revised Webster Bible (RWB), and the Geneva Bible (GNV).

“Princes”: the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB).

“Royal advisers”: the New International Version ( NIV).

“Priestly leaders”: the New Living Translation ( NLT).

“Princes of the court”: the Septuagint ( LXX).

In defense of the translations of kohanim as “chief rulers” or “royal advisors,” some commentators acknowledge that the word “kohen” means “priest,” but that in early Israel the word was also used to designate a royal minister or a person who advised the king.

Keil (p. 369), in order to justify translating the word kohanim as “confidants,” cites 1 Kings 4:5, where Zabud, Nathan’s son, is a kohen (“priest”) and “the king’s friend,” that is, the king’s confidential advisor..

Most of the translations that say that David’s sons were advisors base their translations on the interpretation offered by the Chronicler in 1 Chronicles 18:17 where David’s sons are called “the chief officials in the service of the king.” This description of the office occupied by David’s sons reflects the post-exilic perspective of the Chronicler, where only Levites could serve as priests. Thus, the designation of David’s sons as priests was unacceptable to the Chronicler.

Many English translations follow the Chronicler’s unwillingness to acknowledge that individuals who were not Levites could become priests. Since the Chronicler does not use the word “priests” but calls the sons of David “chief officials at the king’s side” (NIV), many English translations follow the reading of the Chronicler.

But, as P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (p. 255) concluded:

“Almost all critics, therefore, have agreed that the readings of I Chron 18:17 and the versions in II Sam 8:18 are interpretive paraphrases of the reading of MT by scribes who considered it impossible that there should be non-Levitical priests.”

In conclusion, it is better to translate the word kohanim as “priests” rather than “royal advisors.” Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.

References:

C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary of the Books of Samuel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samuel. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Priests, Translations

“Our Mother who is in heaven”: Reflections on a New Translation of the Bible

The Adventist News Network has published an article in which they review a new translation of the Bible published recently in Germany. Below is an excerpt from the article:

Seventh-day Adventist theologians in Germany worry the latest Bible version released in their country sacrifices Scriptural accuracy on the altar of political correctness.

Reflecting five years of study and the input of nearly 50 individuals from diverse backgrounds, the new Bible version, worded to “do justice to women, Jews and marginalized groups” sold out as soon as it hit bookshelves in Germany, according to Ecumenical News International.

With its diluting of Old Testament violence and references to female disciples, apostles, and Pharisees--among other revisions--the version has inspired much hype, not to mention controversy.

“The intent of the new German translation...is to present the Bible in gerechter sprache, or 'just language,'” said Udo Worschech, a Seventh-day Adventist theologian at Friedensau Adventist University in Friedensau, Germany.

“[The translators] tried to be innovative and scientific,” said Siegfried Wittwer, a German Adventist pastor, “[adhering] to the Hebrew and Greek text, [but] using a modern, up-to-date language. They wanted to be gender-fair and avoid anti-Semitic expressions.”

Women are not only mentioned, but addressed personally. As one such example, Wittwer cites several Old and New Testament examples where the phrase "my daughter" replaces the traditional "my son," and where "mother" joins the typical mention of "father."

Additionally, Wittwer notes that when referring to God, the translation often employs the expression, "the Living, the Eternal, the Holy." Each of the attributes is gender-neutral in the German language and--accompanied by a feminine article--intends to temper a patriarchal notion of God, he explains. The familiar "Lord's Prayer" now begins, "Our mother who is in heaven," says Frank M. Hasel, dean of the Adventist-run Theological Seminary at Bogenhofen.

Despite the translations' attempt to heighten Scripture's relevancy, both Wittwer and Worschech remain skeptical of its credibility. Worschech even questions its title. "The German word gerecht is here imbued with the idea of "righteous[ness]. In the German language, this title itself is already misleading, since it recalls the idea of absoluteness and finality," he explains.

Holger Teubert, director and editor of Germany's Adventist Press Service, agrees. "The title of the new Bible version is provocative and polemical. My question is this: Is this Bible version the only translation in a fair language? Are all other translations [written] in an unfair language? The title condemns all other Bible translations."

Where the version claims absoluteness, its language is disturbingly wishy-washy, says Hasel. He cites its treatment of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, recorded in the book of Matthew. "We read that Jesus no longer speaks with his divine authority saying: 'but I say to you...' Instead, he says: 'I interpret this today to mean...' A definite statement is turned into an optional and provisionary suggestion," he explains.

To read the entire article, visit the Web page of the Adventist News Network by clicking here.

Many modern versions of the Bible make an attempt at being gender inclusive, but a translation that changes masculine words into feminine words in order to promote social equality cannot be considered a reliable translation.

Translators are human and for this reason, every translation falls short of perfection since, at times, translators may allow their views to influence the way a text is translated. To be reliable, a translation of the Bible must reflect integrity in representing the meaning and the intent of the original text.

Translating from one language into another is not easy. A good translator must be familiar not only with the intricacies of the language, but also with some aspects of the culture and traditions of the people who produced the text. Translators also must be familiar with their own language. This is necessary in order to convey the meaning of the original language into a form that can be easily understood by the people who will read the translation.

Translators must determine the meaning of the original text and then transmit that meaning in the language into which the text is being translated. Take for instance, the English expression “he gets my goat.” This expression simply means that one person makes another person angry or irritated. In the Spanish spoken in the United States, this expression has been translated “me pega el chivo.” No native Spanish speaking person will understand the meaning of this expression in their language because a person needs to know the context of the phrase in order to know the reason a person is getting a goat. In other words, a literal translation of the English expression makes no sense in Spanish.

Every translation is, to some extent, an interpretation. Translators must interpret the intent of the original author and be able to communicate what they understand the original author was saying. However, private interpretation and theological bias should be set aside for the sake of the integrity of the text.

When this new translation takes the prayer Jesus taught his disciples and translates it “Our Mother who is in heaven,” the translation becomes more than a mere distortion of the original text. This translation, if it could be called a translation, is an imposition of political correctness that reflects a theological agenda that has been imposed upon the text.

I believe that there is a place for gender inclusiveness in translating the Scriptures. However, gender inclusiveness has its limitation because when it is wrongly used, it completely distorts the true intent of the original writers.

If I lived in Germany, this would be one translation I would never use.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Translators, Translations, Bible