I appreciate your thoroughness and research. It is obvious that you put much time into writing this. I knew a lot of this already, although in a general sense. Your details and resources are very helpful. I have a question. I have read that after Jesus' resurrection, a group of Hebrew scholars changed some of the OT Messianic prophecies by watering them down. I think the writer called that the Masoretic text. That particular writer endorses translations based on the Septuagint as more accurate because that translation was based upon the OT manuscripts before the changes were made in the Masoretic text. Have you heard of that before? He also said that OT quotations in the New Testament were from the Septuagint, which accounts for differences between their wording and the wording of the Hebrew texts. I am wondering if there is any truth to any of this.
Thanks for the kind words. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories about the Bible. One of the interesting things that was confirmed with the Dead Sea Scrolls is that what you suggest, that things were changed along the way, did NOT happen. The Masoretic text is nearly identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls text written 1000 years before, and hundreds of years before Jesus. Consequently, many English Bibles continue to use the Masoretic text. It's a good, reliable copy of the OT. As I said in the post, any good translation will use EVERYTHING available to inform the OT translation, including the Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc. Ditto with the NT.
Because the translators, down through the centuries, have made strenuous efforts to learn the original languages used in the Scriptures, and striven for accuracy above everything else. And many of them paid with their lives for doing so, at the hands of corrupt religious leaders.
Thank you David for this most interesting post. I have found through different sources that the NIV is not correctly aligned with the KJV and certain important key words were left out. I asked my pastor about it and he said that that was the reason he wouldn't use the NIV. I have since removed the NIV versions from my home. Have you heard of this before?
The only question about alignment should be whether the translation aligns with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV is just another translation. Some people give the KJV a reverence that I don’t think it is due. While the KJV is a fine translation, particularly for its time, it’s just another translation, nothing more. Some people act as if the KJV is the only true translation or the best translation. It isn’t. And the language is old and more difficult for modern readers to understand. But for many it sounds “churchy,” which they think is good. And it certainly isn’t “woke.”
There are multiple editions of the NIV. The initial editions from the 1980s were quite good and there is nothing wrong with them. In later years, the translation committee made a decision to be more “inclusive” with the language. So, for instance, where the Hebrew or Greek might say “brothers,” the NIV would translate that to “brothers and sisters.” Some level of that is okay in my opinion. There are places where the text clearly applies to both men and women. But many people thought the NIV was “going woke” and starting to prioritize modern social sensibilities more than an accurate translation. While I don’t think the translation committee stepped over the line, I do think they took a step toward it, and this is a danger that faithful Christians should guard against. But there is no reason to throw away all your NIV copies, particularly older editions from before 2000. But I think the NLT is a better choice for an “easy reading” version (which was sort of the NIV’s claim to fame) and has avoided this controversy.
I personally choose the NLT, ESV, and NASB as my Bibles of choice. The NLT is my daily reading Bible, when I want to cover a lot of ground quickly. The language is just smoother. I then use the ESV and NASB when I want a more strict, word for word translation, when I’m going deep.
In general, most of the widely used modern translations are quite good. There are some “translations” that I would stay away from, however. Notably, The Passion translation is quite bad.
The problems with the NIV weren't that it was more PC, it was that certain words were left out. Those were important words like in Matt 17:21 the KJV says "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". The NIV omits "fasting" which not only misquotes the words of Jesus but misleads one in spiritual warfare. The same thing happens in Mark 9:29 where "fasting" is also omitted in the NIV. There are also many similar errors with key words in the NIV, but I forgot the chapter and verse.
I do not think that the KJV is the best translation either, and I agree with you that it is a hard read. My Pastor also likes the NLT. The Passion is definitely bad. I appreciate your take on the matter and look forward to your future posts.
Look at the footnotes in the NIV. They have made a translation choice here vs the KJV. They say that “Some manuscripts say…” and then tell you what they have removed. So, it isn’t a case where the NIV translators are just removing verses. Sometimes the oldest or majority of the copies available at a given point suggest that a verse was added later, so they are choosing to go with the oldest or dominant evidence. The NASB 1995 edition includes Matt 17:21 with a footnote that says the earliest manuscripts don’t have it. The latest NASB edition removes it and has a footnote saying that some manuscripts include it and then gives the text. So, this looks like one of those cases where the scholarship has shifted and the oldest manuscripts don’t include the verse, suggesting it was added later. Again, all reputable Bibles will tell you in the footnotes what they are doing in cases like this. The KJV was limited in what manuscripts were available and so it included the verse. I guess my point is that this isn’t any sort of conspiracy theory. The translators removed it because it wasn’t there in the oldest manuscript copies.
I see what you are saying, but it just seems suspect considering which words were left out. Unless we can see the manuscripts ourselves or ask Jesus Himself, we have to go with what they claim. I went to Bible Gateway and Bible Hub and looked up what the NLT verse was for Matt 17:21 and the verse was totally missing (it goes from 20 to 22 skipping 21). The footnotes just say that some?? manuscripts add verse 21. Sorry, it is hard not to believe conspiracy theories in these crazy times. Thank you for your reply, great info.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just shifting scholarship. One of the nice things is that there are so many good English versions to choose from and compare. If one translation was to “go off the rails” (the NIV got wobbly, IMO), then it’s relatively easy to detect it and choose another. The fact that every translation includes a footnote for Matthew 17:21, whether they include the verse or not, tells you that this is a well known issue with the available manuscripts. Some make one choice and others choose differently. Some translations choose differently as the manuscript evidence shifts. When the KJV was created, there were fewer manuscripts available and so they just included it. I think everyone is doing the best they can to try to provide a quality translation at any given point in time. The fact that they are providing footnotes telling you what is happening and why they are making the choices that they are is a strong counter to any charges of conspiracies. It’s a bad conspiracy if they tell you exactly what they are doing. 😉 If you are deeply interested in this, I recommend A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix. It goes very deep on everything related to the Bible.
I loved this piece, just fantastic
I appreciate your thoroughness and research. It is obvious that you put much time into writing this. I knew a lot of this already, although in a general sense. Your details and resources are very helpful. I have a question. I have read that after Jesus' resurrection, a group of Hebrew scholars changed some of the OT Messianic prophecies by watering them down. I think the writer called that the Masoretic text. That particular writer endorses translations based on the Septuagint as more accurate because that translation was based upon the OT manuscripts before the changes were made in the Masoretic text. Have you heard of that before? He also said that OT quotations in the New Testament were from the Septuagint, which accounts for differences between their wording and the wording of the Hebrew texts. I am wondering if there is any truth to any of this.
Thanks for the kind words. There are all sorts of conspiracy theories about the Bible. One of the interesting things that was confirmed with the Dead Sea Scrolls is that what you suggest, that things were changed along the way, did NOT happen. The Masoretic text is nearly identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls text written 1000 years before, and hundreds of years before Jesus. Consequently, many English Bibles continue to use the Masoretic text. It's a good, reliable copy of the OT. As I said in the post, any good translation will use EVERYTHING available to inform the OT translation, including the Masoretic, Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc. Ditto with the NT.
A great exploration- I’m saving it for future reference.
Because the translators, down through the centuries, have made strenuous efforts to learn the original languages used in the Scriptures, and striven for accuracy above everything else. And many of them paid with their lives for doing so, at the hands of corrupt religious leaders.
Thank you David for this most interesting post. I have found through different sources that the NIV is not correctly aligned with the KJV and certain important key words were left out. I asked my pastor about it and he said that that was the reason he wouldn't use the NIV. I have since removed the NIV versions from my home. Have you heard of this before?
The only question about alignment should be whether the translation aligns with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The KJV is just another translation. Some people give the KJV a reverence that I don’t think it is due. While the KJV is a fine translation, particularly for its time, it’s just another translation, nothing more. Some people act as if the KJV is the only true translation or the best translation. It isn’t. And the language is old and more difficult for modern readers to understand. But for many it sounds “churchy,” which they think is good. And it certainly isn’t “woke.”
There are multiple editions of the NIV. The initial editions from the 1980s were quite good and there is nothing wrong with them. In later years, the translation committee made a decision to be more “inclusive” with the language. So, for instance, where the Hebrew or Greek might say “brothers,” the NIV would translate that to “brothers and sisters.” Some level of that is okay in my opinion. There are places where the text clearly applies to both men and women. But many people thought the NIV was “going woke” and starting to prioritize modern social sensibilities more than an accurate translation. While I don’t think the translation committee stepped over the line, I do think they took a step toward it, and this is a danger that faithful Christians should guard against. But there is no reason to throw away all your NIV copies, particularly older editions from before 2000. But I think the NLT is a better choice for an “easy reading” version (which was sort of the NIV’s claim to fame) and has avoided this controversy.
I personally choose the NLT, ESV, and NASB as my Bibles of choice. The NLT is my daily reading Bible, when I want to cover a lot of ground quickly. The language is just smoother. I then use the ESV and NASB when I want a more strict, word for word translation, when I’m going deep.
In general, most of the widely used modern translations are quite good. There are some “translations” that I would stay away from, however. Notably, The Passion translation is quite bad.
The problems with the NIV weren't that it was more PC, it was that certain words were left out. Those were important words like in Matt 17:21 the KJV says "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". The NIV omits "fasting" which not only misquotes the words of Jesus but misleads one in spiritual warfare. The same thing happens in Mark 9:29 where "fasting" is also omitted in the NIV. There are also many similar errors with key words in the NIV, but I forgot the chapter and verse.
I do not think that the KJV is the best translation either, and I agree with you that it is a hard read. My Pastor also likes the NLT. The Passion is definitely bad. I appreciate your take on the matter and look forward to your future posts.
Look at the footnotes in the NIV. They have made a translation choice here vs the KJV. They say that “Some manuscripts say…” and then tell you what they have removed. So, it isn’t a case where the NIV translators are just removing verses. Sometimes the oldest or majority of the copies available at a given point suggest that a verse was added later, so they are choosing to go with the oldest or dominant evidence. The NASB 1995 edition includes Matt 17:21 with a footnote that says the earliest manuscripts don’t have it. The latest NASB edition removes it and has a footnote saying that some manuscripts include it and then gives the text. So, this looks like one of those cases where the scholarship has shifted and the oldest manuscripts don’t include the verse, suggesting it was added later. Again, all reputable Bibles will tell you in the footnotes what they are doing in cases like this. The KJV was limited in what manuscripts were available and so it included the verse. I guess my point is that this isn’t any sort of conspiracy theory. The translators removed it because it wasn’t there in the oldest manuscript copies.
I see what you are saying, but it just seems suspect considering which words were left out. Unless we can see the manuscripts ourselves or ask Jesus Himself, we have to go with what they claim. I went to Bible Gateway and Bible Hub and looked up what the NLT verse was for Matt 17:21 and the verse was totally missing (it goes from 20 to 22 skipping 21). The footnotes just say that some?? manuscripts add verse 21. Sorry, it is hard not to believe conspiracy theories in these crazy times. Thank you for your reply, great info.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just shifting scholarship. One of the nice things is that there are so many good English versions to choose from and compare. If one translation was to “go off the rails” (the NIV got wobbly, IMO), then it’s relatively easy to detect it and choose another. The fact that every translation includes a footnote for Matthew 17:21, whether they include the verse or not, tells you that this is a well known issue with the available manuscripts. Some make one choice and others choose differently. Some translations choose differently as the manuscript evidence shifts. When the KJV was created, there were fewer manuscripts available and so they just included it. I think everyone is doing the best they can to try to provide a quality translation at any given point in time. The fact that they are providing footnotes telling you what is happening and why they are making the choices that they are is a strong counter to any charges of conspiracies. It’s a bad conspiracy if they tell you exactly what they are doing. 😉 If you are deeply interested in this, I recommend A General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix. It goes very deep on everything related to the Bible.
Thank you David I added it to my Amazon list. Even if we don't agree on everything, I truly value your opinion. Interesting subject!
Thank you for this David.
Great piece. The Intuit to Amazon metaphor captures the problem of conveying ideas across temporal and cultural and geographic boundaries very well.
Thank you. I’m glad that example worked for you. It’s a difficult problem to explain without an example of some sort.
Well done.
Thank you. I’m glad you liked it.