Bible (mis)tranlsations?

As I have mentioned previously in my blog, I have a bit of a penchant for etymology and linguistics. There’s nothing that gives me a childish thrill quite like making connections between words both within English and between languages, as well as observing the subtle differences between the meanings of words in different languages (alert nerd).

When we read translated works, it is impossible to extract the complete meaning intended by the author. This is because words have more than their denotation (the definition), but also the connotation, and the connotation is often different through space and time.

Furthermore, words often have a broad meaning, which is ambiguous when attempting to translate between languages, or vice versa. This often results in a subtle, or remarkable, difference in meaning.

So I have always wondered (well, let’s be honest here, not always, but for a substantial amount of time considering how recently I actually bothered to research this) about what kind of meaning is lost when literature is translated, and in particular, one of the most influential AND most translated books in all of history: The Bible.

A Brief History of the New Testament in English

As you may be aware, the bible was not originally written in English. Most people are aware that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, but fewer people are aware that the New Testament (capitalized upon request of Microsoft Word) was first written in Greek. Both testaments have been chopped and changed over many hundreds of years, and the original versions have both been lost.

The New Testament was translated into Latin, where it remained for a long time, and made its first debut in English in 1383 as the Wycliffe version, translated by followers of John Wycliffe, the Oxford scholar. However, this version was banned, and the first official version was the Great Bible, authorized by Henry VIII, and later into the King James Bible, which is well known today.

(Mis)translations

Clearly, both testaments have had a whirlwind journey of changes and translations, which of course begs the question: how have the translations affected the meaning of the Bible? I want to share with you some important ways the modern English translations may have altered the true meaning of the Bible.

I’m no scholar in theology, and of course there are many learned people with in-depth views on these translations. However, I think it’s both important and interesting to consider the importance of these issues.

The 10^th commandment

The Ten Commandments first appeared in the New Testament, and in most versions of the Bible the 10th one reads “thou shalt not covet”. To many, this is interpreted to mean thou shalt not desire.

However, some commentators, such as Bible scholar Joel Hoffman, have argued that the original Hebrew version of the 10^th commandment reads “thou shalt not take”. He argues that “take” and “desire” share a common root in Hebrew, and that “covet” is indeed a mistranslation. The Hebrew word in the Old Testament is “chamad”, which a quick Google search tells me means enjoy, or take pleasure in. I can already see how the confusion may have arisen: for me to “enjoy”, for example, my neighbour’s oxen, would probably imply that I have taken the oxen for my own purposes.

On the other hand, it seems strange that the commandment could mean “thou shalt not take” when there already exists the 7^th commandment of “thou shalt not steal”, which would render the meanings almost identical.

The “virgin”

Another popular point of contention is the translation of “virgin”. Most scholars agree that during Biblical times, the term for “virgin” was used interchangeably with “young woman” because most young women were (or assumed to be) virgins. For example, in German, the word for virgin is “Jungfrau”, which literally means “young woman”.

This is obviously troubling, because a large part of the bible focuses on virgin births, and to suggest that the whole “virgin birth” of Jesus thing is just one big mistranslation would be a big deal.  

 It seems unlikely that the virgin birth of Jesus himself is a mistranslation, because in the Gospel of Luke, Mary responds to the angel Gabriel’s news that she is carrying God’s child with “How will this be… since I am a virgin?”. It would be a bit strange to respond to someone telling you that you’re pregnant with “How will this be, I’m a young woman?” now, wouldn’t it?

One “day” in Genesis 1

Some other commentators have noted that the length of time representing a “day” in Genesis 1 may in fact mean a “length of time”. This is due to the ambiguous nature of the Hebrew word “yom”, which can mean both day, and also an indeterminate long period of time.

In fact, some groups have used this mistranslation to provoke discussion on the true age of the world, suggesting that these “days” were in fact very long periods of time, fitting in with the current scientific perspective. Indeed, if this “day” is in fact millions of years, the biblical age of the Earth and the scientific age of the Earth could be similar.

However, the same word is used several times throughout the old testament, and is consistently used to describe a 24-hour period. Furthermore, the six days of creation and one day of rest is used as an analogy for the importance of maintaining the Sabbath, again suggesting that the word for “day” was probably not a mistranslation.

Metaphor

Apart from specific words, there are also symbolic metaphors in the Bible which may have lost their original meaning.

One such important example is the concept of the shepherd. In fact, this metaphor has been so well studied, there are entire books dedicated to this precise question. 

It has been suggested that the modern image of the shepherd – that of the caring, protective figure – is incorrect. Rather, some have noted, that the ancient shepherd was a fierce warrior figure. You can see the impact of “the Lord is my shepherd” rather than “the Lord is my warrior”; it evokes a rather different image.

Conclusion

I hope that these kinds of conversations elucidate the true meaning of the bible without causing offence. Overall, it’s obvious that some subtle meaning from the original biblical texts have been lost over time. That’s to be expected, and would happen with any translation. It seems unlikely to me that any crucial parts of the bible have been incorrectly translated, but rather there are small differences between versions, which would slightly change the meaning, and these subtle differences are interesting and important to note.

What do you think?

"I read the Bible to myself; I'll take any translation, any edition, and read it aloud, just to hear the language, hear the rhythm, and remind myself how beautiful English is." - Maya Angelou 

the reckless philosopher