Is rewriting the Bible to get rid of contradictions really ethical?

[Markus6]

Absolutely not! It was posted because I believed---and lacking evidence to the contrary, still do believe---that there is a delibrate, unethical effort on the part of Bible publishers to cover up an embarrassing discrepancy. A discrepancy that looms as crack in the wall of Biblical inerrancy.

I find it amazing that certain views of the Bible make errors like this a possible threat to the whole of Christian belief. "Is it 22 or 42? How can I follow Jesus if I don't know?" Looming indeed!

The discussion between me and CIC is to show that this discrepancy goes back before the modern publishers who you are trying to vilify. 22 is found in the LXX but to understand what that means some knowledge of OT biblical manuscript traditions is necessary. I think between us we've given a pretty good summary. The publishers merely chose from the varying manuscripts (a process call textual criticism) and the verse in Kings probably informed that as well.

 

[Washington]

I find it amazing that certain views of the Bible make errors like this a possible threat to the whole of Christian belief. "Is it 22 or 42? How can I follow Jesus if I don't know?" Looming indeed!

"The whole of Christian belief"?!?
According to what I found the issue of in errancy only affects 35% of Christians.

"The Gallup organization reports that thirty-five percent of Americans believe the Bible to be the “inerrant word of God,"
source
​

Hardly the whole of Christian belief.

The discussion between me and CIC is to show that this discrepancy goes back before the modern publishers who you are trying to vilify. 22 is found in the LXX but to understand what that means some knowledge of OT biblical manuscript traditions is necessary.

No it is not! If they went to the Septuagint (LXX) they would still be guilty of deliberate misquoting, because in it 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads:

"Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri."
source and source
​

NOT twenty-two years old.

I think between us we've given a pretty good summary. The publishers merely chose from the varying manuscripts (a process call textual criticism) and the verse in Kings probably informed that as well.

Really! So where did they choose from? The only source I've seen mentioned is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the LXX

Now the Jewish Publication Society translation of the Tanach (Masoretic Text. ) gives The DIVREI YAMIM B (Book of 2 Chronicles Chapter 22) as:
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri" which is the same thing found in the Codex Leningradensis, the source of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia:

ben-’arəbā‘îm ûšətayim šānâ ’ăḥazəyâû ḇəmāləḵwō wəšānâ ’aḥaṯ mālaḵə bîrûšālāim wəšēm ’immwō ‘ăṯaləyâû baṯ-‘āmərî:
(source)
​

ben-’arəbā‘îm translates as "forty."

AND: "The text of bhs is an exact copy of the masoretic text as recorded in the Leningrad Codex." source

So sorry, but the evidence speaks against any honest translations of LXX, the BHS, the Masoretic Text, or the Codex Leningradensis by those who used "22" in 2 Chronicles 22:2. None of these sources support it.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Absolutely not! It was posted because I believed---and lacking evidence to the contrary, still do believe---that there is a delibrate, unethical effort on the part of Bible publishers to cover up an embarrassing discrepancy. A discrepancy that looms as crack in the wall of Biblical inerrancy.

As my math teachers always told me: "Show your work." Let's see your evidence. Mere claims aren't going to work here.



Excuse me? First you write, "the early copies show no error at all" and then you say, "it was just a clerical error." Care to explain how this error is a non-error?

I think you mis-understood me. I had said the earlier copies like the LXX don't have this error. For the KJV it was a clerical error during its translation in the middle ages. I was talking about 2 different things. I myself trust the LXX more than the Masoretic

 

[Washington]

I think you mis-understood me. I had said the earlier copies like the LXX don't have this error. For the KJV it was a clerical error during its translation in the middle ages. I was talking about 2 different things. I myself trust the LXX more than the Masoretic

Interesting. And your sources of information are?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Interesting. And your sources of information are?

well thats what the majority think happened. For some weird reason the Douay-Rheims says 42. Although I believe the Douay-Rheims was involved during the KJV translation.

Heres an interesting explanation from the Haydock Bible:


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Ver. 2.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif] Forty-two, &c. Diverse Greek Bibles read twenty-two, agreeably to 4 Kings viii. 18., (Challoner) with the Syriac and Arabic. The Roman (Calmet) and Alexandrian Septuagint have "twenty." (Haydock) --- Ochozias was the youngest son, and his father died at forty years of age, chap. xxi. 20. (Calmet) --- Others would date from the birth of Amri, (Broughton) or of Athalia. But is most probable that we should read 22, as [in] 4 Kings. (Calmet) --- The contradiction has so much perplexed the commentators, that Walton (prol. 36) puts it among the quædam Greek: apora; and De Dieu says, "I would rather plainly confess that this difficulty is to us inexplicable." The error here, "is plainly owing to a mistake of one of the Hebrew numeral letters," c, being put instead of m, which was formerly more similar than it is now. "In Origen's Hexapla, one of the Greek copies (probably that found in Caracalla's time) reads here cb, by rendering the number 22, Greek: eikosi kai duo, all which proofs make the mistake indubitable, and strongly recommend this method of correcting it." (Kennicott) --- Mariana, Tirinus, &c., had already suggested this plan, (Haydock) which is very plausible. (Du Hamel) --- Ochozias might reign twenty years with his father, and only one alone, 4 Kings viii. 26. (Worthington)[/FONT]


So it good that bibles like the NASB corrected it

 

[Washington]

well thats what the majority think happened. For some weird reason the Douay-Rheims says 42. Although I believe the Douay-Rheims was involved during the KJV translation.

Heres an interesting explanation from the Haydock Bible:


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]Ver. 2.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif] Forty-two, &c. Diverse Greek Bibles read twenty-two, agreeably to 4 Kings viii. 18., (Challoner) with the Syriac and Arabic. The Roman (Calmet) and Alexandrian Septuagint have "twenty." (Haydock) --- Ochozias was the youngest son, and his father died at forty years of age, chap. xxi. 20. (Calmet) --- Others would date from the birth of Amri, (Broughton) or of Athalia. But is most probable that we should read 22, as [in] 4 Kings. (Calmet) --- The contradiction has so much perplexed the commentators, that Walton (prol. 36) puts it among the quædam Greek: apora; and De Dieu says, "I would rather plainly confess that this difficulty is to us inexplicable." The error here, "is plainly owing to a mistake of one of the Hebrew numeral letters," c, being put instead of m, which was formerly more similar than it is now. "In Origen's Hexapla, one of the Greek copies (probably that found in Caracalla's time) reads here cb, by rendering the number 22, Greek: eikosi kai duo, all which proofs make the mistake indubitable, and strongly recommend this method of correcting it." (Kennicott) --- Mariana, Tirinus, &c., had already suggested this plan, (Haydock) which is very plausible. (Du Hamel) --- Ochozias might reign twenty years with his father, and only one alone, 4 Kings viii. 26. (Worthington)[/FONT]


So it good that bibles like the NASB corrected it

Thanks.

However, considering the evidence, Calmet's cautious remark, "But is most probable that we should read 22, as [in] 4 Kings." shows he is less convinced of it than I would expect, which speaks of a reasonable doubt . I also question remarks made so many years ago, and by whom. What qualified: Calmet 1757, Haydock 1849, Challoner 1781, De Dieu 1642, Kennicott 1783, and Du Hamel 1706 to speak with authority? Not that they are necessarily incorrect, but I would expect a more current evidentiary explanation.

And while this may be all well and good, you still haven't shown that the KJ version was "a clerical error during its translation in the middle ages."

By the way, in ref to your "I had said the earlier copies like the LXX don't have this error." As I pointed out, the LXX gives "twenty" not "twenty-two."

 

[ebia]

Is rewriting the Bible to get rid of contradictions really ethical?

If that's their motivation, no. But where there is variation in manuscript evidence translators have to make choices about how to render a passage.

 

[Washington]

If that's their motivation, no. But where there is variation in manuscript evidence translators have to make choices about how to render a passage.

And the question is, why did the modern versions choose to us "twenty-two" in 2 Chronicles 22:2 when no manuscript evidence indicate it should be?

 

[ebia]

And the question is, why did the modern versions choose to us "twenty-two" in 2 Chronicles 22:2 when no manuscript evidence indicate it should be?

Well, firstly, my understanding is that the Syriac (and some Arabic) manuscripts have 22, as do a few LXX manuscripts, while most LXX have 20.

So we have, roughly in decreasing order of attestations:

• 42 in most or all hebrew MSS
• 20 in most LXX MSS
• 22 in one or two LXX MSS and the Syriac MSS

and 22 in the Samuel/Kings parallel.

It seems to me that one has a choice to make. 20 would be a very odd choice to make unless one was generally following the LXX, but either 42 or 22 could be justified. Though one ought to footnote the alternatives, especially if one is not following the text one is normally following.

 

[Ave Maria]

It is ethical if we have found by studying the ancient texts that the contradictions are there by our own faults. However, if we find that the contradictions existed in the original texts, it is immoral to rewrite the Bible to remove the contradictions because they were a part of the original text.

 

[Washington]

Well, firstly, my understanding is that the Syriac (and some Arabic) manuscripts have 22, as do a few LXX manuscripts, while most LXX have 20.


So we have, roughly in decreasing order of attestations:

• 42 in most or all hebrew MSS
• 20 in most LXX MSS
• 22 in one or two LXX MSS and the Syriac MSS

and 22 in the Samuel/Kings parallel.

It seems to me that one has a choice to make. 20 would be a very odd choice to make unless one was generally following the LXX, but either 42 or 22 could be justified. Though one ought to footnote the alternatives, especially if one is not following the text one is normally following.

The Syriac Peshitta does read "22," but I have yet to see any evidence that any LXX mss did. Got any sources?

 

[ebia]

The Syriac Peshitta does read "22," but I have yet to see any evidence that any LXX mss did. Got any sources?

So far nothing that's both unambiguous and highly credible. The NET footnotes imply that, but aren't wonderfully clear:

3 tc Heb "forty-two," but the parallel passage in 2Ki_8:26 reads "twenty-two" along with some MSS of the Septuagint (LXX) and the Syriac.

 

[Stinker]

It is ethical if we have found by studying the ancient texts that the contradictions are there by our own faults. However, if we find that the contradictions existed in the original texts, it is immoral to rewrite the Bible to remove the contradictions because they were a part of the original text.

I think it would be very beneficial for all the Bible companies to get together and remove some of the contradictions contained in the New Testament. Make the Resurrection morning events consistent, as was the goal (I'm sure) of the Gospel writers in the first place. Remove the Council of Jersualem meeting from Acts 15 because this does not have any application to those coming to Christ today and disagrees with what Paul said about it in his Galatian letter. In fact having this 'meeting' in the New Testament just causes confusion and conflicts with the Great Commission of (Mt.28:19-20) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Removing all troublesome passages would not harm the message the Bible has for us. I do not see doing this as being unethical.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I think it would be very beneficial for all the Bible companies to get together and remove some of the contradictions contained in the New Testament. Make the Resurrection morning events consistent, as was the goal (I'm sure) of the Gospel writers in the first place. Remove the Council of Jersualem meeting from Acts 15 because this does not have any application to those coming to Christ today and disagrees with what Paul said about it in his Galatian letter. In fact having this 'meeting' in the New Testament just causes confusion and conflicts with the Great Commission of (Mt.28:19-20) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Removing all troublesome passages would not harm the message the Bible has for us. I do not see doing this as being unethical.

That's rather disturbing of you.

 

[ebia]

It is ethical if we have found by studying the ancient texts that the contradictions are there by our own faults. However, if we find that the contradictions existed in the original texts, it is immoral to rewrite the Bible to remove the contradictions because they were a part of the original text.

Trouble is, we'll never know which of those two positions we are in.

 

[Verv]

Barack Obama is a Chrisitan.

Let's see what he thinks about this.

 

[chingchang]

That's rather disturbing of you.

Rather Orwellian (sp?) I'd say...

 

[SiderealExalt]

Rather Orwellian (sp?) I'd say...

Lol seriously.

In order to avoid the perception of confusion..lets make sure all the propaganda lines up. Yeesh, how Stinker doesn't find that at least a little unsettling is beyond me.

 

[BlackSabb]

There are two passages in the Bible---2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2---that contradict each other. In the King James Version they read as follows:

2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

Obviously both cannot be correct.
Other Bibles such as the Amplified Bible, the New King James Version, the 21st Century King James Version, and the American Standard Version show the same contradiction. However, in the following Bibles 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads as "twenty-two years old," or a variation there of.

New International Version
New American Standard Bible
The Message
New Living Translation
English Standard Version
Contemporary English Version
New Century Version
Young's Literal Translation
Darby Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New International Reader's Version
Today's New International Version
​

So 70% of the Bibles I was able to access seem to have taken the liberty of changing the age in 2 Chronicles 22:2 so as to conform to that found in 2 Kings 8:26. (all the Bibles listed "twenty-two" in 2 Kings 8:26.)
But maybe 2 Chronicles 22:2 should read "twenty-two," and the other 30% simply need updating? I'll let you judge.

From the Blue letter Bible we find the following relevant information.

2 Kings 8:26.
[shĕnayim `esriym] years old [was] Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

shĕnayim (Strong's H8147) = Two
`esriym (Strong's H6242) = and twenty
​

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was ['arba`iym shĕnayim] years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.

'arba`iym (Strong's H705) = Forty
shĕnayim (Strong's H8147) = and two
​

So, the way I read it, the 70% listed above simply disregarded the Hebrew words in 2 Chronicles 22:2. in favor of trying to eliminate a contradiction in the Bible. Ethical? I say not. And considering that this is the Bible we're talking about it would appear to be one heck of an ironic deceit.

But I leave any condemnation to the Christian, who will elect to view this as their needs dictate. Need the Bible to be inerrant? then obviously this twist of the truth--unethical though it may be-- overrides any other considerations. Need the Bible to be honest? then the contradiction only exemplifies the human character of those who assembled it, and the deciet shown in the named Bibles above as absoutly unacceptable.

I have no ethical dilemma of altering Biblical passages on the following conditions:

1) That the changed text does not involve a theme of the Bible. For eg, in your OP, you mentioned that the error changed involves the age of a king. Such altering of details by me are fine as they are just that-details. I fully accept that Biblical translators and copyists can get it wrong and so you are merely correcting a previous transciptural error. Nothing wrong with that at all.

2) That where the Biblical passage has been changed, a keyed footnote is attached. So for eg, when you read that section of the Bible about the age of the king, a footnote is added stating that some manuscripts state the age of the king as say 42 rather than 22.

3) That the Bible has all it's translators listed.


What I do have major problems is editing the Bible to suit the skewed beliefs of a particular denomination. Unorthodox denominations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses are prime examples of this. They don't believe in the trinity. In the Bible, it says in the Gospels that the Word came into the world and that the Word (Jesus) was God.

The crafty Jehovah's Witnesses have changed that and it states that the Word was a God. The inclusion of "a" changes everything, and it's done to dispense with any insinuation of the trinity. And the Jehovah's Witness Bible, (New World Translation) does not list it's translators like other Bibles.

It's a bit like witnessing a car accident. And a police officer interviews you about what happened. And then you say that you saw a green car run a red traffic light and slam into a white car. Now, I think most of us can agree that it's only human if you change the statement and say that the green car was perhaps blue. Or the white car was a cream one.

What is not acceptable is when you completely change the meaning of your statement and then claim that the green car came to a full stop at a red traffic light whilst a white car made a sharp turn and slammed into it. If you change the statement like that, it changes everything. Changing the colors of the car/s changes nothing but minor details.

 

[chingchang]

I have no ethical dilemma of altering Biblical passages on the following conditions:

1) That the changed text does not involve a theme of the Bible. For eg, in your OP, you mentioned that the error changed involves the age of a king. Such altering of details by me are fine as they are just that-details. I fully accept that Biblical translators and copyists can get it wrong and so you are merely correcting a previous transciptural error. Nothing wrong with that at all.

2) That where the Biblical passage has been changed, a keyed footnote is attached. So for eg, when you read that section of the Bible about the age of the king, a footnote is added stating that some manuscripts state the age of the king as say 42 rather than 22.

3) That the Bible has all it's translators listed.


What I do have major problems is editing the Bible to suit the skewed beliefs of a particular denomination. Unorthodox denominations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses are prime examples of this. They don't believe in the trinity. In the Bible, it says in the Gospels that the Word came into the world and that the Word (Jesus) was God.

The crafty Jehovah's Witnesses have changed that and it states that the Word was a God. The inclusion of "a" changes everything, and it's done to dispense with any insinuation of the trinity. And the Jehovah's Witness Bible, (New World Translation) does not list it's translators like other Bibles.

It's a bit like witnessing a car accident. And a police officer interviews you about what happened. And then you say that you saw a green car run a red traffic light and slam into a white car. Now, I think most of us can agree that it's only human if you change the statement and say that the green car was perhaps blue. Or the white car was a cream one.

What is not acceptable is when you completely change the meaning of your statement and then claim that the green car came to a full stop at a red traffic light whilst a white car made a sharp turn and slammed into it. If you change the statement like that, it changes everything. Changing the colors of the car/s changes nothing but minor details.

This is a slippery slope...although I'm guessing it doesn't matter much at this point given that the scribes didn't have a problem with changing the text either. Who knows how different Chistianity would look today if we had the original documents...shoot...I'd learn Greek myself for that.

Oh...can you get a larger Black Sabbath banner...I could barely see that one... (btw...my fav is 'War Pigs').

CC