Critique of New Age Bible Versions, Part 9

March 3, 2024 at 5:40 pm (Textual Criticism)

On the last page of her introduction, Riplinger has another table called “test the translation.” Here are another 18 passages where the modern versions supposedly display their One World Religion propensities. Some of these need an explanation. For many of them, one scratches one’s head and wonders how, for instance, “have been saved” is so radically different from “are saved.” If people have been saved, then they are in the position currently of “are saved.” Trying to force a difference between these two things when they amount to the same thing, and, worse yet, accuse the perfect tense translation of promoting One World Religion is rather obtuse.

In Acts 3 and 4, the KJV uses the phrase “his Son Jesus” and “holy child Jesus” (3:13, 26 for the former; 4:27, 30 for the latter). In those same passages, most modern versions use the term “servant” instead of “Son.” This is a translation issue, not a text-critical one. The Greek term is “pais,” which has three main possible meanings in the Scriptures: “boy” or “youth”; “child”; and “servant.” All three are well-attested in the New Testament. The KJV version interpreted the term to mean “Son.” Modern versions took a different route. They believed that the nature of Christ’s servanthood (well-attested in Matthew 20:28, for example) was more present in the text, tilting their opinion that direction (and the ESV, for one, has the meaning “child” footnoted as an alternative reading). It is not heresy to call Jesus something He called Himself. The word obviously means “servant” in Luke 7:7. Modern translations did not come up with “servant” out of the blue. It definitely falls within the semantic range of meaning of the term “pais.” Either translation is quite plausible in the context. But blasting modern translations for translating it in a way that is well within the semantic range of the term is not appropriate.

The next two examples are similar, but with a proper name. The Hebrew name “Joshua” is the same name as “Jesus” in Greek. Both the name “Joshua” and the name “Jesus” are spelled “Iesous” in Greek. So, in the LXX, Joshua’s name is “translated” as “Jesus.” In Acts 7:45, Stephen is talking about the tent in the wilderness and bringing it into the promised land with “Iesous.” So, this could technically be Jesus, but isn’t it much more likely to be “Joshua” in this context? In Hebrews 4:8, Paul is speaking about someone who did NOT give the people of God rest. How would that be appropriate to describe Jesus, when Jesus Himself says “Come unto me, you who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest”? Paul is saying that Joshua did not give them rest. But again, since the two names are identical in Greek, the modern versions can hardly be faulted for thinking that Joshua is a more likely reference here than Jesus. Certainly, their motivation at this point can hardly be One World Religion by thinking that the authors are talking about Joshua in those two verses.

In Romans 3:3, the question has to do with a genitival construction “ten pistin tou theou.” This can be translated as an objective genitive, “faith in God,” or a subjective genitive “the faithfulness of God” (here “the faith that God has” makes no sense). Both understandings are possible grammatically. Here, the words “objective” and “subjective” have NOTHING to do with “objective fact” or “subjective opinion.” Rather, they are simple grammatical terms. “Objective” here means that the noun in the genitive case (“theou”) is the object of the noun “pistin”. The subjective understanding means that the noun in the genitive case (“theou”) is the one exercising “pistin.” The reason most modern translations go with the subjective understanding is verse 4, which is about whether God is true in relation to other people. This is much closer to the “faithfulness of God” understanding, the subjective genitive.

The last examples for this post are in Romans 11:30, 32. Again this is not a text-critical issue but an interpretive issue, and again the word (“apeitheo”) has a range of meaning, encompassing both meanings, the one that the KJV uses, and the one that the majority of modern translations uses. In the background to this hermeneutical issue is the fact that unbelief and disobedience are not so far apart in many passages in the OT. Indeed, when one is considering, say, the Ten Commandments, we can say that when a person disobeys them, they are also disbelieving them. The two meanings are not synonymous. There are contexts where they are quite distinct. However, there are also contexts, like Romans 11, where it is not crystal clear which one is intended. Both translations work in context. When we also understand that the belief produces obedience and unbelief produces disobedience, we will also see that the two renderings are not so opposed to each other as Riplinger seems to think. The modern versions certainly did not produce this understanding out of thin air with no linguistic basis. I am beginning to wonder if Riplinger even understands Greek at all. She certainly doesn’t seem to understand about the semantic range of words.