Decessus

Often times when I debate with theists about whether or not contradictions exist in the Bible, I get the reply that many of the passages have been mistranslated. Then I am provided with a link or some other source that shows the correct translation and how the correct translation does not contain any kind of contradiction.

Since I do not know Hebrew or any other language besides English, I don't really have any way to know if what is being said is true or not. Does anybody know of a source I could use to determine if a passage really has been mistranslated or not?

Origin

A great intro to NT textual critism and what can go wrong with translations is Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)"

Roger Pearse

Any argument that professional modern translations of ancient texts involve mistranslation is probably unsound. For all practical purposes they are probably just fine.

spin

Don't you just love Roger?

However, some modern (christian) translations are in fact better than others, especially when dealing with dogmatic issues such as the virgin birth and the mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, piercing in Ps 22, and the creation out of nothing in Gen 1:1 and various other gems of deliberate mistranslation. The NRSV (christian) and the JPS (Jewish) are the most reputable.

Then there's the updating of language to cover over the sexist bias of the originals, eg not just brothers, but brothers and sisters, though sisters is not in the text. Routine translation of nazarhnos and nazwraios as "of Nazareth". These are off the top of my head and I'm sure others on the forum could add others.

Just fine? Yeah, sure, Roger. You believe that.


spin

-Jay-

Misquoting Jesus, a fine intro on its own, is largely drawn from Ehrman's Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) and The New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). These are more "textbookish", if you feel like a little more depth after MJ.

regards,

NinJay

John Kesler

If the dispute about a "mistranslation" hinges on the proper translation from Hebrew or Greek to English, then your best bet is to consult lexicons and other scholarly sources. Sometimes the most accurate translation comes from a manuscript other than the primary one used (for example, appealing to the LXX or DSS over the MT). There is no one-size-fits-all Web site or answer that can be provided, as each situation needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, so it would be better if you provided some specific examples.

Ray Moscow

I'm largely in the same boat -- I can only gradually pick through the biblical languages with lectionaries and other reference books, and so I rely on good English translations almost entirely.

As others have said, I would stick with the more academically respected translations such as the NRSV or JSB (though I also like the RSV).

In my experience, most of these alleged "mistranslation" issues are from people with only a cursory knowledge of the biblical languages, with perhaps a course or two in them, whereas the real translators are experts who have spent many years in working with the languages and their history. To pretend one can do better without comparable experience is like taking an introductory Spanish course and then setting out to "correct" the books in the local Spanish bookshop.

Ray

Mythra

I would think it shouldn't be hard to find numerous contradictions (even between the synoptic gospels) for which the "mistranslation" excuse cannot be claimed.

Of course, apologists will try and find a different angle to wiggle around those.

-Jay-

This seems like little more than semantic Whack-a-Mole. If contradictions exist due to mistranslations, it's not unreasonable to conclude that harmonies also exist due to mistranslations.

For a supposedly divine book, there certainly are a lot of caveats on proper interpretation...

regards,

NinJay