Since becoming involved in the Bible translation issue I have been repeatedly
asked by friends why I spend so much time researching and writing on this
topic. I have been accused of “going overboard” and have been scoffed at
through e-mails for having a website defending our Authorized Version (AV) by
individuals who claim that I do not care for other “more important” issues.
But is there a “more important” issue facing Christianity today? This is a
question we must each ask ourselves. A. W. Pink in his book “The Divine
Inspiration of the Bible” had the following words to say,
“Christianity is the religion of a Book. Christianity is based upon the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture. The starting point of all doctrinal discussion must be the Bible. Upon the foundation of the Divine inspiration of the Bible stands or falls the entire edifice of Christian truth. — “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3) (Pink, Introduction).”
I highly doubt that many would argue with these words by Pink. But at the same time many could seemly careless about the changes and enormous differences among today’s modern translations. What most Christians are also ignoring is the shift modern scholarship has made over the last hundred years or so. It use to be a sign of doubt and unbelief to question the Scriptures but now it has almost become the fad to raise questions about the Holy Bible. Once upon a time Christendom had only to worry about attacks from atheists, agnostics and other such groups but now professed ‘Christian scholars’ assail us on every side by words of unbelief. Consider more words from A. W. Pink:
“Surrender the dogma of verbal inspiration and you are left like a rudderless ship on a stormy sea-at the mercy of every wind that blows. Deny that the Bible is, without any qualifications, the very Word of God, and you are left without any ultimate standard of measurement and without any supreme authority. It is useless to discuss any doctrine taught by the Bible until you are prepared to acknowledge, unreservedly, that the Bible is the final court of appeal (Ibid.).”
Again, most would agree with these words (at least in theory). However, I have learned that while many pay lip service to our AV they are not at all fully convinced that it is, as Pink says, “the very Word of God”. Nearly every person I have discussed this matter with readily confesses that our AV is “the word of God”. But these charlatans along with their phony allegiance to God’s words soon reveal their true character as they repeatedly deny its text, question readings and translations. They have little trouble looking you in the eyes and dogmatically stating that our AV has multiple errors. This they say while still purporting to believe that our AV “is the word of God.”
I must admit, dear reader, that I find this type of ‘reasoning’ inconceivable.
How can someone claim to believe a Bible to be the ‘word of God’ but yet deny
many of its readings insisting that verses have been added and many verses
have been inaccurately translated? These same people will flatly reject the
New World Translation on these very same grounds but will continue their
charade when it comes to our Authorized Version. What is it that makes these
people behave in such a manner? If they are fully convinced that our AV has so
many errors and/or has followed the wrong text in many verses then why not
come out and reject it? Why continue paying lip service to a Bible that you
obviously do not believe to be the “the very Word of God”?
If you think my words too harsh or perhaps misleading then this little study
should demonstrate once and for all that what I am saying is true. I wish to
look at the often-misunderstood verse of 1 Sam. 6:19, which has been the
subject of much conversation in time past. Our AV reads, “And he smote the men
of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he
smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people
lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great
slaughter.” Now we will examine the comments of a few scholars and Bible
versions.
It may perhaps benefit us to see how several of the more popular modern
translations render this verse----
ASV- And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the
ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, and fifty thousand men;
and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great
slaughter.
NASV- And He struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh because they had
looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck down of all the people, 50,070 men,
and the people mourned because the LORD had struck the people with a great
slaughter.
NIV- But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of
them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people
mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them,
RSV- And he slew some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked into the
ark of the Lord; he slew seventy men of them, and the people mourned because
the Lord had made a great slaughter among the people.
NRSV- The descendants of Jeconiah did not rejoice with the people of Beth-shemesh
when they greeted the ark of the LORD; and he killed seventy men of them. The
people mourned because the LORD had made a great slaughter among the people.
NLT-But the LORD killed seventy men from Beth-shemesh because they looked into
the Ark of the LORD. And the people mourned greatly because of what the LORD
had done.
ESV-And he struck some of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they looked upon
the ark of the Lord. He struck seventy men of them, and the people mourned
because the Lord had struck the people with a great blow.
Young’s Translation- And He smiteth among the men of Beth-Shemesh, for they
looked into the ark of Jehovah, yea, He smiteth among the people seventy men
-- fifty chief men; and the people mourn, because Jehovah smote among the
people -- a great smiting.
NKJV- Then He struck the men of Beth Shemesh, because they had looked into the
ark of the Lord. He struck fifty thousand and seventy men of the people, and
the people lamented because the Lord had struck the people with a great
slaughter.
NET- But the Lord struck down some of the people of Beth Shemesh because they
had looked into the ark of the Lord; he struck down 50,070 of the men. The
people grieved because the Lord had struck the people with a hard blow.
From the above translations one would think that the Hebrew is ambiguous at
this verse. However, nothing could be further from the truth! Actually there
is very little question as to what the Hebrew says in verse 19. The Hebrew
here reads, “seventy men, fifty thousand men”. To my knowledge there are only
3 Hebrew mss. (all of the 12th century) that omit “fifty thousand men” and
read only “seventy men”. The LXX also reads, “seventy men, and fifty thousand
men”. Likewise, the Vulgate reads, “seventy men, and fifty thousand of the
(common) people.” So why the various readings in the modern versions listed
above? Let’s look at a few of their footnotes and see what they have to say
about their own translation.
The footnote in the NIV stated, “A few Hebrew manuscripts; most Hebrew
manuscripts and Septuagint 50,070 “ Here the NIV admits that “most” Hebrew
mss. have 50,070. But since the NIV committee didn’t believe the words of God
they have instead followed the opinions of historians and commentators. This I
will show by and by!
The RSV and NRSV both have the following footnote, “Heb of the people seventy
men fifty thousand men”. Even though they both read “seventy men” they readily
admit that they have abandoned the Heb. reading in favor of some other
reading. They do not indicate where they got this reading from though.
The NLT contains one of the more remarkable notes that I found, viz. “As in a
few Hebrew manuscripts; most Hebrew manuscripts and Greek version read 50,070
men. Perhaps the text should be understood to read the LORD killed 70 men and
50 oxen.” (The NKJV contains a similar footnote) Like those before they
confess that the Hebrew is not ambiguous at all and in fact reads “50,070
men”! However, they then hypothesize and say that “perhaps” the text “should
be understood” to read “the LORD killed 70 men and 50 oxen”. This is
interpretation and not translation! As Dr. Scrivener once stated, such a
phrase “can be arrived at only through some process which would make any
phrase bear almost any meaning the translator might like to put upon it”.
The ESV emphatically states, “Hebrew of the people seventy men, fifty thousand
men”. Despite knowing this fact they have chosen to follow an unnamed source
in reading “seventy men of them”.
I have perhaps saved the best footnote for last! The footnote attached to the
NET reads, “The number 50,070 is surprisingly large, although it finds almost
unanimous textual support in the MT and in the ancient versions. Only a few
medieval Hebrew mss lack "50,000," reading simply "70" instead. However, there
does not seem to be sufficient external evidence to warrant reading 70 rather
than 50,070, although that is done by a number of recent translations (e.g.,
NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT). The translation reluctantly follows the MT and the
ancient versions here.” This long footnote is very revealing in many aspects.
Again, they willingly admit that the Hebrew, without question, reads “50,070”.
Additionally, they confirm that this reading has “almost unanimous textual
support in the MT and in the ancient versions”. However, the last two comments
are the most shocking. While again admitting that there is practically no
evidence for the reading “70 men” they seem to lament the fact that they are
forced (i.e. ‘reluctantly’) by both the text and plain evidence to follow the
Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). In spite of knowing the reading is 50,070 they
appear to admire “a number of recent translations” that have abandoned the MT.
What an astonishing admission by the NET! They once again demonstrate that
they are not at all interested in the actual evidence for a reading but are
rather interested in what seems ‘right’ in their own minds (cf. “surprisingly
large”). We proceed.
The note of the NET brings us to our next point of discussion, viz. “thus
saith the historian and Bible commentator”. Just why does Wallace say that the
Hebrew reading is “surprisingly large”? We have seen testimony from nearly
every modern translation that the Hebrew undeniably reads “50,070” so why does
Wallace feel compelled to question the Hebrew and why do so many versions
ignore the Hebrew and read “70 men”? These are questions we will seek to
answer in this portion of the article.
Much like those individuals I mentioned at the onset of this article we also
have that group of people that routinely emphasize how they believe “only the
Hebrew and Greek are inspired”. They will categorically deny that any
translation can be the perfectly preserved words of God-----let alone
“inspired”. Yet in verses just like the one under discussion they will join
the scoffers and doubt the “inspired” Hebrew. They will cite such pious
reasons as “scribal error”, “scribal embellishment of the text” and
“transmissional error”. Then they will no doubt quote some historian and/or
Bible commentary in an attempt to explain to you why they doubt the “inspired”
Hebrew. Let’s look briefly at what a few famous commentaries have to say
regarding this verse.
Commenting on the figure 50,070 Jamieson, Fausset and Brown declare that
“Beth-shemesh being only a village, this translation must be erroneous, and
should be, “he smote fifty out of a thousand,” being only fourteen hundred in
all who indulged this curiosity. God, instead of decimating, according to an
ancient usage, slew only a twentieth part; that is, according to JOSEPHUS,
seventy out of fourteen hundred (see Numbers 4:18-22).” Here we find the root
of this unbelief! Because Bethshemesh was only a village JFB reason that “this
translation must be erroneous”. But ‘this translation’ is exactly what the
inspired Hebrew says. So JFB are not only condemning those translations that
read 50,070 but they are also condemning the Hebrew text. Then they fabricate
a reading that has absolutely no textual support whatsoever---------“he smote
fifty out of a thousand”. I know of no text (Hebrew or otherwise) that reads
this way. Yet we are to abandon the ‘erroneous’ Hebrew text for a reading that
exists only in the minds of JFB. We read and marvel!
Next we examine some of the comments by Adam Clarke. Clarke, while admitting
that the Hebrew reads 50,070, makes the following observation, “From the
manner in which the text stands, and from the great improbability of the
thing, it is most likely that there is a corruption in this text, or that some
explanatory word is lost, or that the number fifty thousand has been added by
ignorance or design;.” Again we are informed that this is a “great
improbability” and that there is “a corruption in this text” (i.e. the
Hebrew). Clarke further displays his doubt and unbelief regarding the inspired
Hebrew with his remarks “most likely…..some explanatory word is lost, or that
the number fifty thousand has been added by ignorance or design”. It is a
strange phenomenon indeed when learned men will reject the clear reading of
the Hebrew in favor of such ridiculous ideas as “most likely”, “word is lost”
and/or “added by ignorance or design.”
As we’ve seen above there is not one shred of evidence to substantiate these
claims by Clarke. Unlike the apostle Paul it appears that much learning has
indeed made Clarke mad. Rational thinking men would not reject the obvious
Hebrew reading for mere guesswork as Mr. Clarke tries to convince us to do.
And what is the extraordinary reason Clarke gives that should persuade us to
cast aside the inspired Hebrew? Much like JFB Clarke makes the mistake of
looking at this through a strictly humanistic point of view. Clarke states,
“it being very improbable that such a small village as Beth-shemesh should
contain or be capable of employing fifty thousand and seventy men in the
fields at wheat harvest, much less that they could all peep into the ark on
the stone of Abel, in the corn-field of Joshua”. Again we see the “small
village” tactic employed in hopes of swaying our allegiance from the Hebrew to
the camp of unbelief. So what about this argument? Is it valid? We will
examine it now.
Both JFB and Adam Clarke appealed to the fact that Bethshemesh was a small
village as the basis of their doubting the clear Hebrew text. But is this
reason enough to abandon our trust in the Hebrew? God forbid! Even though
Bethshemesh was a small village it would be no miraculous event for well over
50,000 people to turn out to see the “ark of the LORD”. Such things are common
place in human history. As I’m writing this article our city is hosting a very
large automobile-racing event. This entire event is spread out over a two week
period and will culminate on Sunday when more than 200,000 race fans from all
over the U.S and Canada converge on the speedway to watch a grueling 600 mile
race. The track itself lies on the border of two counties with three
neighboring towns butted up against the track. Our local paper reported just
days ago that one of the small towns that adjoins the speedway has a
population of 15,912 people. The paper quoted the Fire and Rescue Chief as
saying that well over 20,000 people were camping in his district alone. So
this small town of roughly 16,000 people swells to over 36,000 people in a
two-week span just for a car race.
This is minute when compared to some of the events of many false religions
around the world. Last year in the month of February approximately 3 million
Muslims descended on the small city of Mecca to make the 15-mile trek to Mount
Arafat. A small rural farm in Rockdale County, some 35 miles east of Atlanta,
drew nearly 150,000 people who came to hear Nancy Fowler give a 30-minute
message she supposed received from “The Virgin Mary”. And in Mexico a small
town of roughly 20,000 people grows to over 650,000 to gaze at what they
believed to be a miraculous “Virgin Mary”. Considering these things why should
JFB, Clarke and many others find it unfathomable that 50,000 plus would turn
out for the opportunity of a lifetime, viz. to look upon the ark of the LORD?
Clarke continues, “Some solve the difficulty by translating, “He slew SEVENTY
men OUT OF fifty thousand men.” There are various other methods invented by
learned men to remove this difficulty, which I shall not stop to examine; all,
however, issue in this point, that only SEVENTY MEN were slain; and this is,
without doubt the most probable. The FIFTY THOUSAND, therefore, must be an
interpolation, or be understood in some such way as that mentioned above.”
What a candid admission by Mr. Clarke! Of the versions I consulted not one
rendered the passage as Clarke suggests above. However, Mr. Clarke’s statement
that “there are various other methods invented by learned men to remove this
difficulty” is very enlightening. As I’ve insisted from the beginning most
modern versions were not concerned with what the Hebrew said but were
interested only in ‘inventing’ a different reading to ‘remove’ a difficulty
that exists only in their mind. There is nothing difficult about the Hebrew in
this verse. We have seen testimony from many different translations and they
all testify to the fact that the Hebrew reads “50,070”.
Matthew Henry only adds to the present confusion with the note in his
commentary that “The number smitten is expressed in an unusual manner in the
original, and it is probable that it means 1170.” 1170?? Where did he come up
with that figure? As I said above, such a number could only be arrived at
through some process which would make any phrase bear almost any meaning the
translator might like to put upon it. Henry is in even worse shape than JFB
and Clarke. There are no Hebrew mss. that read this way and no ancient
versions either.
I hope you have been able to see the utter confusion that arises when we
desert the obvious reading of the Hebrew original. When we set up own mind or
those of some self-professed ‘scholar’ we are in grave danger. If we are to
say that we believe the Authorized Version then let’s start believing EVERY
word of it. Let’s not be guilty of professing our love for our Bible only to
approach such passages as discussed in this essay with doubt and unbelief. If
we profess to believe the Hebrew Old Testament is the inspired words of God
let’s not seek to correct the Hebrew with the words of historians or
commentators. If we will consistently approach the words of God by faith and
with a humble spirit I can assure you that God will increase your
understanding and the passages that scoffers label as “problem passages” will
be easily answered. We must first start with our own approach to the Bible!
Selah!
Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness! | Believe The Gospel
