However, this could be a mistranslation, or at least, a misunderstanding. Firstly, note that no Greek manuscripts actually say ‘for profit’ like the NIV does above – no, that’s just a translator insertion.
What about the rest? Well, we defer to the Aramaic manuscripts whenever they say something differently from the Greek (see why) – and interestingly, the Aramaic version doesn’t use a word meaning ‘peddle’ here. Instead, the Aramaic uses a word for ‘mixing’ or ‘diluting,’ and this is probably where the problem started…
Dishonest merchants would water down (dilute) wine by mixing it with water, to boost their profits. So this word came to mean such ‘diluters’ or ‘mixers,’ which implied an ‘unscrupulous merchant,’ or as we say in English: a ‘peddler.’ So while it’s true that some people make money from God’s word, was that really the point? Was Paul emphasizing making money? Or was he emphasizing the watering down of God’s word for a dishonest purpose?
Indeed, if the point was only about money-making, it wouldn’t completely fit the context, because Paul contrasts it by saying, ‘instead we speak the truth.’
Is money-making the opposite of truth-speaking? Perhaps in some contexts. But isn’t the opposite of making money, giving something away for free?
Let’s ask it another way: What is the opposite of speaking truth? Is it making money? No – the opposite of speaking truth is speaking lies.
Indeed, according to the lexicons, the Greek word translated as ‘peddlers’ can also mean to ‘adulterate’ or ‘corrupt.’ So a 1st-century Greek reader may have understood it to mean watering-down after all; perhaps Paul was saying that, unlike dishonest merchants who dilute and adulterate their wine, he doesn’t water-down or adulterate God’s word, but instead says says the whole, unadulterated truth – the real, genuine article!
But of course, the Greek doesn’t say he is ‘speaking the truth,’ it says he speaks ‘with sincerity.’ So what about that?
Well, the Aramaic clearly says ‘truth’ instead of ‘sincerity’ here. Yet there’s more to it…
The word is a very specific version of ‘truth’ – more like ‘reality’ or ‘actuality,’ and doubles as meaning ‘firmness.’ So the Apostle wasn’t just saying he speaks truth, but he speaks reality – he says things that actually exist and are true, and these facts are strong, firm, and sure. This contrasts nicely with people who might water down or dilute God’s message to be weaker – just like wine diluted with water.
And lo and behold, according to the lexicons, the Greek word translated as ‘sincerity’ has an additional definition that (depending on the context) means ‘clearness’ – or as we might say, he speaks with ‘plainness.’
So if this line of thought is correct… Paul was actually saying that he doesn’t dilute God’s words to make them weaker (like a dishonest merchant might do to his wine), but instead he repeats God’s words plainly, and firmly, just as they are.
Also, note that the Aramaic manuscripts speak of the plural ‘God’s words,’ and not the singular ‘God’s word.’
So, while making money off religion is indeed wrong – that perhaps wasn’t Paul’s point in 2 Corinthians 2:17. So this translation puts it this way:
Well, we aren’t like the rest who dilute and weaken God’s words [like a dishonest merchant does to wine]. No, instead we speak the plain truth from God in God’s sight (through the Anointed One).
https://2001translation.org/notes/peddlers
2 Samuel 21:19 – Who killed GoliAth?
This verse, both in the Masoretic and the Greek Septuagint says that GoliAth was killed by a man named ‘EleAnan the son of AriOrgim’ instead of David. This obviously contradicts the other famous accounts, including the account earlier on in the book of 1 Samuel.
Further, the duplicate account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 says that EleAnan actually killed GoliAth’s brother, a man named LachMi.
So what’s going on? Why does 2 Samuel get it wrong?
Well, there seems to be a simple scribal error in the original Hebrew manuscript!
That duplicate account in 1 Chronicles 20:5 also says that EleAnan (also spelled ElHanan) was actually called the son of Ari not son of AriOrgim. Indeed, the word ‘Orgim’ is not a person’s name, it means weaver. A scribe seems to have accidentally duplicated the word ‘weaver’ from the end of the verse, where it talks about GoliAth’s spear being as thick as a weaver’s beam. This duplicated word then makes the entire verse make no sense and mucks up the Hebrew grammar (and remember, Hebrew grammar works very differently from European grammar).
To clear up the confusing mess, it was assumed that ‘Orgim’ (weaver) was part of Ari’s name, making a compound name: AriOrgim, or in English: AriWeaver.
Then, because the grammar now makes no sense, the name of Goliath’s brother, LachMi (which looks like the word for ‘bread’), was probably ‘corrected’ by someone to form part of the name of ‘Bethlehem’ (which means ‘house of bread’)!
Lastly, the scribe seems to have confused two similar-looking Hebrew words: אחי (brother of) and את (a Hebrew grammatical marker). So he turned the ‘brother of’ into that marker, essentially removing the word from the text!
So we started off with ‘EleAnan the son of Ari killed LachMi, the brother of GoliAth,’ and we ended up with, ‘EleAnan the son of AriWeaver from Bethlehem killed GoliAth’!
What a mess!
This Hebrew scribal error – possibly a result of more than one scribe – was either present when the Septuagint was translated in the 3rd century BCE, or some later person ‘helpfully’ ‘corrected’ the Septuagint text to agree with Hebrew error. We don’t know which it was.
So while the Bible cannot contradict itself, copyists can. It’s a good example of an apparent contradiction that’s easily solved by a little insider knowledge.
It also shows the inadequacy of certain Bible translations, as some have done nothing at all to correct this error!
It’s good that many modern Bibles insert the words ‘the brother of’ to help fix the problem, but then they leave in the reference to ‘Bethlehem’ – making no note of the fact that it’s a corruption of the name of GoliAth’s brother.
https://2001translation.org/notes/who-killed-goliath
2 Samuel 6:14 – David dancing naked?
The account at 2 Samuel 6:14 is a great example of why we trust the Greek Septuagint manuscripts over the Hebrew Masoretic text.
In the Septuagint, King David is described as wearing a fine robe (στολην εξαλλον) while he danced in the parade leading God’s Sacred Chest into JeruSalem for the first time. On the other hand, the Hebrew Masoretic text says that he was wearing just a linen ephod (vest).
So when his wife Michal accused him of exposing himself while he danced, the conclusion that the Hebrew text implies is that he celebrated bringing Jehovah’s Chest to JeruSalem by dancing naked from the waist down! This certainly doesn’t sound appropriate or likely.
However, the Greek Septuagint shows that he was fully covered in fine clothes, so Michal’s accusation could just be the exaggeration of a disgusted wife who didn’t approve of David’s dancing. Perhaps she thought that her husband was not behaving in the dignified matter that her father Saul would have done.
Therefore, did David actually expose his genitals?
Well, apparently, ancient IsraElites didn’t wear underpants beneath their robes, so lively dancing may have caused David to accidentally expose himself. But the rest of Michal’s and David’s words may just mean that she disapproved of his exuberant dancing and used exaggeration to make her point.
https://2001translation.org/notes/2samuel6-14
2 Thessalonians 1:9 – ‘with age-long ruin’
The precise wording and meaning of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a bit unclear, and we have chosen to deviate from the thoughts expressed in other Bibles for the following reason.
For example, the New American Standard Bible, says:
‘These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.’
However, we believe that this is in error. Literally, the Greek source reads:
‘which/ones justice will/pay ruin age-long (Greek: holethron aionion) from face of/the Lord and from the glory of/the strength of/him.’
Firstly, aionion does not mean eternal, but age-long. In other words, it lasts for a specific period. How long that period may last is unspecified. Yes, it could turn out to be eternity, but it may not turn out to be.
Secondly, being eternally destroyed is inconsistent with the thought of being sent away from the face of the Lord. Is one being destroyed or sent away? Which is it? Indeed, Strong’s says this about the word used in the Greek source, that the word:
“…does not imply ‘extinction’ (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete ‘undoing.’”
If indeed this should be understood to mean a complete loss or a complete undoing, then the Aramaic sources might agree. The Aramaic word can mean “loss, perdition, waste”, although it could mean “ruin” and “destruction” too.
So, we have translated this verse more literally in a way that harmonizes the Greek and Aramaic, and the context, as:
‘Yes, in justice, they’ll be repaid with age-long ruin away from the face of the Lord and the glory of his might’
https://2001translation.org/notes/2-thessalonians1-9
2 Timothy 2:19 – The mystery quote
The Apostle quotes two phrases here. The first is usually understood as a quote of Numbers 16:5 (or Nahum 1:7).
The second one, however, is a ‘mystery’ to academics. Nobody knows what the apostle was quoting. Some have proposed that it’s alluding to certain passages, but none really fit. Some have even suggested that he was combining the thoughts of two different passages into one. However, it sounds very much like a direct quote.
In most Bibles it reads like this:
‘Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.’ –NIV
So, what is the answer to this little mystery?
Well, maybe we have it.
While it’s certainly true that we should turn away from wickedness, our theory is that this is actually a mistranslation. However, not a modern mistranslation, but an ancient one!
You see, the word which appears above as ‘turn away’ is translated from the Greek, which our project believes was likely translated from an Aramaic original. Now, in the Aramaic manuscripts, the word used is ܘܢܦܪܘܩ (wnprwq) and it has two completely different meanings.
It can indeed mean to abstain, or to leave off and abandon something. However, it can also mean to be rescued, saved, or most interestingly of all: to be ransomed. The correct meaning is deduced from the context.
Once you realize this fact, you can see how an ancient Greek translator (who turned the original Aramaic letter of Paul into Greek) could make a simple mistake – he could simply chose the wrong meaning. Once you change the word from abstains to saves, it becomes very obvious what Paul was quoting.
Literally, in Aramaic, it says:
ܐܶܢܽܘܢ ܘܢܶܦ݂ܪܽܘܩ ܡܶܢ ܥܰܘܠܳܐ ܟ݁ܽܠ ܕ݁ܩܳܪܶܐ ܠܰܫܡܶܗ ܕ݁ܡܳܪܝܳܐ
he-them saves from evil all who-call-to his-name of-the-lord
Or:
He saves all who call on the name of the Lord.
The ancient Greek translation, therefore, has two errors. It says ‘abstain from evil’ instead of ‘saves from evil,’ and it says ‘Christ’ instead of ‘the Lord’. If we fix both errors, then the Greek text would say something like:
Everyone calling on the name of the Lord will be saved from evil.
Any experienced Bible reader can immediately identify this quote. It’s not hard. It’s obviously a paraphrase of Joel 2:32:
‘…all who call on the name of the Lord will be the ones who are saved’
This verse is also quoted by Peter in Acts 2:21 and by Paul again in Romans 10:13. Here in 2 Timothy, Paul simply adds that we’re being saved from evil.
The only English Bibles to fix this error is ours and the 1933 Lamsa Bible. For everyone else, this quote is a mystery.
https://2001translation.org/notes/2timothy2-19
37 mighty men?
You may notice that the list (in our translation) of David’s ‘mighty men’ in 2 Samuel 23:24-39 only contains 25 names, and the entire chapter only lists 30 names of mighty men. We can assume these are the original members of the group of ‘30’ that’s mentioned several times. ‘The 30’ probably became a name itself.
So why does it then say ‘In all, they numbered 37’ at the end?
Could our manuscript, the Greek Septuagint, have it wrong here? Perhaps. The Hebrew Masoretic text contains a longer list of names, and parts of the list itself are quite different. Clearly at least one version is corrupted, maybe both.
Also, some have been able to make the list in the Hebrew add up to 37… although you need to jump through some mental hoops to get there! They say that if you use the slightly longer list in the Hebrew text, and if you make an assumption that there are actually two groups of ‘three mighty men’ (which has one unnamed member), and then if you also assume that JoAb was over them all (even if he wasn’t listed in the chapter)… Then (finally) you reach 37.
However, it seems like a bit of a coincidence that the chapter overall mentions ‘the 30’ men several times, and exactly 30 names are listed in the Septuagint text. That part seems to add up.
Also, remember that our Greek Septuagint manuscript is centuries older than the oldest Hebrew manuscript, and the Hebrew was certainly revised (or censored and ‘corrected’) in the late 1st century CE. In other words, we generally trust our Septuagint manuscript over the Hebrew. Or to put it more plainly: someone may have tried to ‘correct’ the Hebrew text by adding more names to reach 37.
So what’s the truth?
Well, we don’t know. Perhaps the number 37 is an earlier corruption which now appears in both texts, and should actually read ‘30.’
Or could the number 37 be referring to other (unnamed) men who replaced members of ‘the 30’ as they died? Indeed, there‘s another list of ‘David’s mighty men’ in 1 Chronicles 11, but the Septuagint text lists even more men there – 51! So it may be that the number 37 includes some of the men who replaced those who died, but perhaps there was a difference of opinion over who was really good enough to be counted among the ‘30.’ Perhaps the author of the later list in 1 Chronicles 11 was a bit more generous and included far more men among the ‘mighty ones.’
So it’s not very clear.
The simplest explanation for the number 37 in 2 Samuel, may be that the number should read ‘30,’ not ‘37,’ and it was simply an earlier scribal error. Then, later on, editors of the Hebrew Masoretic text tried adding to the list to ‘correct’ the discrepancy by taking names from the longer list in 1 Chronicles 11. That longer list of names probably included various men who replaced the ones who died.
Note also that the number 7 in Hebrew is figuratively used to mean completion. Could the original Hebrew text have meant ‘a complete 30’? But it was later corrupted into ‘37?’ Maybe, but if that’s what happened, all manuscript evidence for this is lost.
Alternatively, the Hebrew text has it right, and with a little work (and adding in JoAb) you can get to 37, and the Greek Septuagint translators really messed up their translation and missed out lots of names by accident. However, that goes against all our experience with the Greek text. We just don’t think they could have messed up that badly.
Whatever the truth, David certainly had a group of mighty men known as ‘the 30,’ and some who died were likely replaced by others, perhaps totalling 51. Where the number 37 fits in to all this is unclear.
Also see these translator notes:
• Lost text in 1 Chronicles 11.
• The confusing lists of David’s mighty men.
Sharing is caringFacebookX / TwitterLinkedInWhatsAppTelegramRedditEmail2927 words · 152 views