The Book of the Judges - Some examples of Bible Babel
These are just a few examples taken from the book of Judges that show how not all bible versions say the same things but with different words. It is my contention that the King James Bible is always correct. It is the preserved, inerrant word of God and all other modern English versions are inferiour and often wrong.
Not all Bible versions are as ridiculous as this following example, but you have to admit the New English Bible of 1970 goes beyond the bounds of the usual blunders found in most inferiour versions of God's word. (For several examples of bonehead blunders in such versions as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard see my article here: http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/WrongRen.htmlBible Blunders
Judges 1:14 - she lighted from off her ass
In Judges 1:14 all versions I have consulted say basically the same thing, except the NEB. In the King James Bible we read of Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, who had just been given in marriage to Othniel. "And it came to pass, when she came to him (her new husband) that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and SHE LIGHTED FROM OFF HER ASS; and Caleb said unto her, WHAT WILT THOU?"
However only the NEB says: "When she came to him, he incited her to ask her father for a piece of land. As she sat on the ass, SHE BROKE WIND, and Caleb said, 'WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?'
Judges 3:22 - and the dirt came out
King James Bible - "And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and THE DIRT CAME OUT."
The word "dirt" is a euphemistic term which means his excrement. It is not even an archaic word. Webster's 1999 dictionary defines dirt as "any foul or filthy substance, as mud, grime or excrement." The first definition given for dirt in Webster's Collegiate dictionary 1967 here on my desk is 1. excrement.
Not only does the KJB tell us that Ehud stuck the dagger into the belly of the very fat king Eglon and that "the dirt came out" but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the RSV, NRSV, Webster's, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the Third Millenium Bible.
The 2001 ESV (English Standard Version) says: "and the dung came out."
The Douay-Rheims says: "the excrements of the belly came out."
Adam Clarke comments: "The original, parshedonah, occurs only here, and is supposed to be compounded of peresh, dung, and shadah, to shed, and may be very well applied to his having an evacuation in the natural way through fright and anguish."
David Guzik's Commentary notes: ". Without being coarse, we can see how real and true-to-life the Bible is; in the Bible (unlike most moves and television programs) people go to the bathroom."
John Gill comments: "and the dirt came out -the margin of our Bibles is, "it came out at the fundament"; that is, the dagger did, the thrust being so strong and vehement; but that is not so likely, the dagger being so short, and Eglon a very fat man. The Targum is "his food went out'' which was in his bowels; but as the wound was closed up through fat, and the dagger stuck fast in it, it could not come out that way: rather therefore this is to be understood of his excrements, and of their coming out at the usual place, it being common for persons that die a violent death, and indeed others, to purge upon it."
However many other modern versions give us totally different meanings for this verse, and don't even agree with each other.
The NKJV says: "and his entrails came out."
RV, ASV - "and IT came out behind."
The NASB has: " and the refuse came out.
NIV - "Even the handle sank in after the blade, WHICH CAME OUT HIS BACK."
The Message - "The fat closed in over it so he couldn't pull it out."
Holman - "And Eglon's insides came out.
Young's - " that he hath not drawn the sword out of his belly, AND IT GOETH OUT AT THE FUNDAMENT." (Say What?!)
Net Bible - "for EHUD did not pull the sword out of his belly." (This made up version by Daniel Wallace adds the word "Ehud", and gives a fourth meaning different from all the other versions. The good Doktor Wallace just omits the phrase altogether!)
So did the dirt or the excrement come out of the very fat king Eglon (KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and others), or was it his entrails and intestines (NKJV, Holman), or was it the dagger itself that came out (NIV, ASV), or was it as Young translated "it goeth out at the fundament"?
There is a simple fact recorded in the Scriptures here that excludes the idea found in the NKJV and Holman versions of it being his entrails. The verse tells us that the fat closed upon both the blade and the haft. There was no open wound through which his intestines could pour out of his body. His belly was sealed shut.
It is also noted that Eglon was a very fat man, so it is highly unlikely that the dagger itself came out the other side of his body as the NIV has it. The only thing the phrase "and the dirt came out" can logically refer to is the fact often observed in those who die in a violent manner is that the king defecated from shock. John Gill and other commentators take this view and support the reading found in the King James Bible.
The King James Bible is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NIV are wrong.
"For the AVENGING of Israel"
Judges 5:2
After God had given a great victory to His people in overcoming their enemies, Deborah and Barak sang this song of praise.
King James Bible - "Praise ye the LORD FOR THE AVENGING OF ISRAEL, when the people willingly offered themselves. "
So read the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602 and 1909 "Load a Jehovah porque ha vengado las injurias de Israel" (but not the 1960 edition), Webster's 1833 translation, the Italian Diodati, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Green's Modern KJV, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However there is a wide variety of meanings found in other translations other than "for the avenging of Israel".
NKJV - "WHEN LEADERS LEAD IN Israel, When the people willingly offer themselves, Bless the LORD!" This is basically the reading also found in the RSV, NASB, and Holman Standard.
The NIV is similar with: "WHEN THE PRINCES IN ISRAEL TAKE THE LEAD, when the people willingly offer themselves - praise the LORD."
But the NRSV says: "WHEN THE LOCKS ARE LONG IN Israel, when the people offer themselves willingly - bless the Lord!"
The Bible in Basic English says: "BECAUSE OF THE FLOWING HAIR OF THE FIGHTERS IN Israel, because the people gave themselves freely, give praise to the Lord. "
Easy to Read Version - "The men of Israel prepared for battle"
The Message - "When THEY LET DOWN THEIR HAIR IN ISRAEL, THEY LET IT BLOW IN THE WIND. The people volunteered with abandon, bless God!
Young's "literal" (ha!) - "FOR FREEING FREEMEN in Israel, For a people willingly offering themselves Bless ye Jehovah."
Coverdale - "NOW THAT YE ARE COME TO REST, YE QUIET MEN in Israel, praise the LORD, among such of the people as be free willing."
Now, aren't you glad the meaning is so obvious? See, if we just "go to the Hebrew" everything is immediately cleared up for us.
Judges 5:8 "THEY CHOSE NEW GODS; then was war in the gates."
So read the Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, the NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young's, and the Holman Standard. The NASB is very similar with: "New gods were chosen, then war was in the gates", and the NIV has: "When they chose new gods, war came to the city gates." All these versions basically mean the same thing.
John Gill comments: They chose new gods…That is, Israel, as most of the Jewish commentators interpret it;... this they did after the death of Joshua; it refers to their first idolatry, begun by Micah, (Judges 17:1) they chose other gods than the true God. then was war in the gates - when they fell into idolatry, then God suffered the judgment of war to come upon them, even into the gates of their fortified cities.
However Daniel Wallace's NET version actually says: "GOD CHOSE NEW LEADERS, then fighters appeared in the city gates.", and so does the wildly paraphrased Message AND the brand new TNIV (Today's NIV) saying: "God chose new leaders, who then fought at the gates. " Not quite the same meaning, is it? So is the OLD NIV now wrong and the NEW NIV correct?
Judges 8:13 "returned from the battle BEFORE THE SUN WAS UP"
In the King James Bible we read: "And Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle BEFORE THE SUN WAS UP."
Agreeing with the King James reading of "before the sun was up" are the following Bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1960 (antes que el sol subiere), Webster's 1833, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However versions such as the NKJV, RSV, NIV, NASB and Holman say something like "Then Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle FROM THE ASCENT OF HERES."
Yet the NKJV, NIV, NASB etc. have all translated this same word as "sun" in other places. See Judges 14:18 and Job 9:7 "Which commandeth THE SUN, and it riseth not."
As usual, the commentators all give their contradictory opinions on what this verse means and how it should be translated. What one confidently affirms to be the true reading, another just as confidently denies.
Unexpected support for the truth of the King James reading "before the sun was up" comes from the Coffman Commentary on the Old and New Testaments.
He says: "Gideon ... returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres" (Judges 8:13). We definitely prefer the KJV rendition here which reads: "Before the sun was up." As Hervey said, "This rendition may be well defended and gives excellent sense." Without any doubt the word "Heres is an ancient word for "sun"; and the foolish excuse for making this a proper name of some place is based totally upon what some scholar imagines to be the customary use of "up" or "ascent." However, where is the scholar who knows ALL the uses of such words? Furthermore, when they have made a place-name out of it, WHERE is the place? Of course, there is no such place. Furthermore, the mention of sunrise here indicates, what is almost a certainty, namely, that Gideon attacked the kings at Karkor AT NIGHT. Is that not what he did previously? Why would he have changed his tactics?"
Young's is different from them all. It says: - "And Gideon son of Joash turneth back from the battle, AT THE GOING UP OF THE SUN." See, Mr. Young also "consulted the Hebrew", yet he comes up with a different meaning than all the others.
Judges 9:53 "And all to brake his skull"
Here is an example of another clear error found in many modern versions, including the NKJV.
In Judges chapter nine we are told of Abimelech coming to war against the city of Thebez. Within this city was a strong tower and all the men and women fled into it and went up to the top of the tower. Abimelech then attempts to burn the tower down. Then we read in the King James Bible: "And a certain woman cast A PIECE of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull."
It is so ironic to see many anti-King James Bible sites post this verse as an example of how poorly the King James Bible is translated by saying the woman "all to brake his skull", and yet there is a glaring error found in most modern versions that they conveniently overlook in their blindness to God's Book of final authority.
In the first place, who really has a problem understanding what the phrase means when it tells us the woman cast a piece of a millstone on his head and "all to brake his skull"? It simply means she really smashed his head up badly and totally ruined it. I remember reading this as a young man and had no problem understanding it at all, nor did any of the other new believers in Christ.
Not only does the King James Bible correctly say "A PIECE OF a millstone" but so do Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, the Greek Septuagint (klasma epimulion), the Spanish Reina Valera (un pedazo de rueda de molino), Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Young's, Websters, Italian Diodati, Douay, and the Third Millenium Bible.
The 1568 Bishops' Bible says: "And a certayne woman cast a peece of a mylstone vpon his head, & all to brake his brayne panne."
Matthew's Bible of 1537 with updated spelling says: "But a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon his head and all to brake his brain pan."
In all Hebrew texts there is a necessary word that has been omitted by such versions as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV.
NKJV - "But a certain woman dropped AN UPPER MILLSTONE on Abimelech's head, and crushed his skull. " An "upper millstone" is also the reading of the RSV, NASB, ESV, and the NIV.
The Holman Standard says: "But a woman threw THE UPPER PORTION OF A MILLSTONEon Abimelech's head and fractured his skull." This is still wrong as we shall soon see.
Young's - "a certain woman doth cast A PIECE OF A RIDER on the head of Abimelech, and breaketh his skull."
This little word is "a piece of" a millstone. The Hebrew word is #6400 (peh'lagh) and is found six times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Every time it is correctly translated as "a piece of" in the King James Bible.
It is used both here and in 2 Samuel 11:21 where the same event is referred to. It is used in 1 Samuel 30:12 where David and his men gave "A PIECE of a cake of figs" to a starving man. It is found in Job 41:24 where leviathan is described as: "His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as A PIECE of the nether millstone."
It is finally found two more times in the Song of Solomon where he describes his love whose "temples are like A PIECE OF a pomegranate." (Song of Solomon 4:3 and 6:7)
A millstone consisted of two very large stones, often weighing hundreds of pounds each. Each stone was very heavy in order to break up the grain into fine powder. Such millstones today can weigh from a minimum of 200 pounds each for the smallest versions, and up to thousands of pounds each for the larger ones.
The Bible speaks of both stones in Deuteronomy 24:6 - "No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge; for he taketh a man's life to pledge." There is the nether or lower stone, which formed the round base, and the upper stone, which looked like a very wide, smooth tire and was often made up of several pieces. This big stone was moved around in circles to crush the grain.
Job 41 speaks of "his heart is as hard..as a piece of the nether millstone".
Versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV all omit this necessary word and tell us a certain woman threw AN UPPER MILLSTONE upon the head of Abimelech. This woman must have been Arnold Swartzenegger's equal in strength to have been able lift this huge stone and throw it at ol' Abimelech's head. It is a physical impossibility for most men, let alone for a woman.
Besides, what would a whole millstone be doing at the top of a tower in the midst of the city? The people would logically have rocks like pieces of a millstone to throw down at an attacking enemy, but not an entire millstone.
The NASB concordance shows they have twice omitted the Hebrew word for "a piece of" and translated it as "upper", but in the other places they have translated it as "A PIECE of cake" (1 Samuel 30:12) and "a SLICE of pomegranate" in Song of Solomon.
Likewise the NIV has omitted the word both here in Judges 9:53 and in 2 Samuel 11:21, but has translated it as "A PART of a cake of figs" in 1 Samuel 30:12 and "the HALVES of a pomegranate" in the Song of Solomon.
The NKJV contradicts itself in translating the same Hebrew phrase in two different ways. In Judges 9:53 the NKJV says the woman dropped "AN UPPER MILLSTONE" on his head, but in 2 Samuel 11:21 it says: "Who struck Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who cast A PIECE OF A MILLSTONE on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez?"
So, was it a piece of a millstone that the woman threw, or was it an entire upper millstone that weighed at least a couple hundred pounds or more?
The King James Bible is right, as always, and these other modern versions are wrong. It is as simple as that.
Judges 14:15 - Samson’s Riddle
"And it came to pass ON THE SEVENTH DAY, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle..."
ALL Hebrew texts read "the seventh day" and so do the Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, Geneva, Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, Young's, Darby and Douay versions. The NKJV also reads "the 7th day" footnotes "some ancient authorities read FOURTH day".
This false reading of "on the FOURTH day" comes from SOME Greek Septuagint copies and the Syriac, as the NIV footnote tells us. The following versions have rejected the clear Hebrew reading of the 7th day, and say "on the FOURTH day": The RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard.
For a full explanation of why the King James Bible is correct and the other modern versions are wrong and contradictory, please see my article at this site:
http://www.oocities.org/brandplucked/riddle.html
Judges 15:19
"But God clave AN hollow place THAT WAS IN THE JAW, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived...."
This reading speaks of the miraculous event when God caused water to spring out of the jawbone of an ass. God had previously caused water to spring out of a rock to give to drink thousands of the children of Israel in the wilderness. Is this too hard for God to do?
Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible that God caused the water to spring out of the jawbone are Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1537, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, Douay, Webster's, KJV 21 and Third Millenium Bible.
Wycliffe 1395 - "Therfor the Lord openyde a wang tooth in the cheke boon of the asse"
The Bishops' Bible of 1568 says: "But God brake a great tooth that was in the iawe, & there came water therout, and when he had drunke, his spirite came agayne."
The Douay-Rheims version says: "Then the Lord opened a great tooth in the jaw of the ass and waters issued out of it." But later Catholic versions change the sense of the passage to match that found in such versions as the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, and Holman Standard.
The NKJV, NASB, NIV etc. all make the water to come out of a place called LEHI instead of the jawbone. The NKJV says: "So God split THE hollow place that IS IN LEHI, and water came out and he drank."
John Gill wavers back and forth as he often does, but he first mentions the view of renowned Jewish scholars. Gill says: "And God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout…A socket in which was fastened one of the teeth, and was in the form of a mortar; so Jarchi and Ben Melech, as the word for an hollow place signifies; one of the grinders was knocked out, and so the place where it had been was left hollow, and out of that sprung a stream or flow of water; which was very wonderful, since out of such a place rather blood, or purulent matter, would naturally have issued."
Judges 16 - NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET version all depart from the Hebrew texts
In this chapter we see a place where such versions as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and Daniel Wallace's NET version have added some 33 words to the Hebrew text, all taken from the incredibly corrupt Greek Septuagint version. Actually these extra words come from SOME copies of the LXX as the NIV footnote tells us, but not others.
In the King James Bible we read in Judges 16:13-14 these words: "And Delilah said unto Samson, Hitherto thou hast mocked me, and told me lies: tell me wherewith thou mightest be bound. And he said unto her, If thou weavest the seven locks of my head with the web. (**NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NET and Catholic versions add 33 words at this point**) And she fastened it with the pin and said unto him, The Philistines be upon thee, Samson. And he awaked out of his sleep, and went away with the pin of the beam, and with the web."
This is the reading of ALL Hebrew texts and is found in the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Young's, Darby, and the NKJV to name just a few.
HOWEVER, among the "evangelical versions" beginning with the liberal RSV in 1952 and continuing with the NASB, NIV, NRSV, NET, and the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), we see about 33 words ADDED to the Hebrew text, and the NIV footnote tells us these extra words come from SOME copies of the LXX, but they are not in the Hebrew texts.
The NASB frequently departs from the Hebrew Masoretic texts and either follows the LXX, the Syriac, Vulgate or just makes up its own readings, but they never tell you this in their footnotes. You have to consult other versions to discover this. But there is one footnote in the NASB Old Testament where they admit what they have done. Here in Judges 16:13 the NASB tells us "The passage in brackets is found in Greek but not in any Hebrew manuscript."
ALL Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims, the St. Joseph New American Bible, and the Jerusalem Bible also add all these extra words to the Hebrew text. Since the RSV, NASB, NIV, NETand ESV versions are primarily based on the Catholic text of Vaticanus in the New Testament, this comes as no surprise.
In the NASB, NIV, ESV, and The Message we read the following -- I will capitalize the added words.
Judges 16:13-14 "Delilah then said to Samson, "Until now, you have been making a fool of me and lying to me. Tell me how you can be tied." He replied, If you weave the seven braids of my head into the fabric ON THE LOOM AND TIGHTEN IT WITH THE PIN, I'LL BECOME AS WEAK AS ANY OTHER MAN." SO WHILE HE WAS SLEEPING, DELILAH TOOK THE SEVEN BRAIDS OF HIS HEAD, WOVE THEM INTO THE FABRIC, and tightened it with the pin. Again she called to him, "Samson, the Philistines are upon you!" He awoke from his sleep and pulled up the pin and the loom, with the fabric." (NIV 1982 edition)
Now an interesting thing to note is the fickleness of modern scholars and their "science of textual criticism". The most recent "bible version" to come down the pike is the 2004 Holman Christian Standard. It also omits thousands of words from the New Testament just like the NASB, NIV, but when we get back to these verses in Judges 16, the Holman editors decided NOT TO PUT all these extra words from some LXX copies into their late$t ver$ion.
One of the goofiest "scholarly" Every Man For Himself Bible Versions, now being heavily promoted by Evangelicals, is the NET version put together by men like Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary. He too adds all these extra words to the Hebrew text, and then tells us several revealing things in his "scholarly" footnotes.
Here is what he says (Caps are mine): "28tn The MT of vv. 13b-14a reads simply, “He said to her, ‘If you weave the seven braids of my head with the web.’ And she fastened with the pin and said to him.” The additional words in the translation, “and secure it with the pin, I will become weak and be like any other man.’ 16:14 So she made him go to sleep, wove the seven braids of his hair into the fabric on the loom,” WHICH WITHOUT DOUBT REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL TEXT, are supplied from the ancient Greek version. (In both vv. 13b and 14a the Greek version has “to the wall” after “with the pin,” BUT THIS IS AN INTERPRETIVE ADDITION that reflects a misunderstanding of ancient weaving equipment. The Hebrew textual tradition was ACCIDENTALLY SHORTENED during the copying process. A scribe’s eye jumped from the first instance of “with the web” to the second, causing him to leave out inadvertently the intervening words. 29tn The Hebrew adds, “from his sleep.” This has not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons. 30tn Heb “when your heart is not with me.”
Here we see several things about the mindset of men like Daniel Wallace. He ASSUMES something has been lost from the Hebrew texts, and yet tells us the added words are WITHOUT DOUBT what the originals said, even though he's never seen one scrap of the originals in his life. He next tells us that the missing words come from the LXX, but he himself then says that some of the words found even in the LXX are "an interpretive addition", and so he chooses to omit them. Then he goes on to OMIT several more words from ALL texts "for stylistic reasons", and then he paraphrases more Hebrew words (when your heart is not with me) to "when you will not share your secret with me".
Can you see how totally messed up and inconsistent these self appointed gas bag scholars are? And people actually read this junk and hold these men in high esteem.
In view of the fact that God has clearly stated not to add to nor take away from His words, I wonder how the NASB, NIV, ESV, NET and Holman editors will fare in the day of judgment.
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6
Judges 18:30 Manasseh or Moses?
"And the children of Dan set up the graven image: and Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of MANASSEH, he and his sons were priests to the tribe of Dan until the day of the captivity of the land."
Not only does the King James Bible read "the son of MANASSEH" but so also do all Jewish translations - the Jewish Publication Society 1917, the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936, the Judaica Press Complete Tanach, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.
Agreeing with the correct reading of Manasseh as found in the King James Bible are also Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Louis Segond, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, NASB, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However there are numerous other versions that change the name Manasseh to MOSES. Among these are the RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, NIV, Daniel Wallace's NET version, and the 2004 Holman Standard.
The NIV reads: "and Jonathan son of Gershom, the son of MOSES, and his sons were priests for the tribe of Dan..."
Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Whatever's NET version also rejects the Hebrew texts and reads MOSES instead of Manasseh. He then footnotes: " Several ancient textual witnesses, including some LXX mss and the Vulgate, support the reading “Moses” here. Many Hebrew mss have a nun (?) suspended above the name between the first two letters suggesting the name Manasseh. This is probably a scribal attempt to protect Moses’ reputation."
So in other words, all the hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts have been corrupted. God has not preserved His words in any single text, and by human reasoning we must pick and choose for ourselves among some readings but not all of them found in other conflicting witnesses, and even then not everybody else will agree with us.
The "scholars" can't get their act together.
Darbys translation wrongly reads MOSES instead of Manasseh, but he comments: "The LXX and others read Manasseh but Jewish authority, followed by Jerome, supports the opinion that the text was corrupted."
Notice that Darby says the LXX (Greek Septuagint) reads Manasseh. So does my copy of the LXX - it clearly says Manasseh.
However the NKJV footnotes: "Septuagint and Vulgate read Moses" - a direct contradiction to what Darby and my copy of the LXX say.
Then the NIV scholars, which also wrongly read "Moses" in their text, tell us in their footnote: "SOME Septuagint manuscripts and Vulgate read Moses, but the Hebrew Masoretic text has Manasseh."
The NASB correctly reads Manasseh in its text, but then footnotes: "Some ancient versions read Moses." They don't tell us which versions these are, and only create doubt as to what exactly God inspired.
The RSV, NRSV, and ESV, which also incorrectly say Moses in their text, then tell us in a footnote "another reading is Manasseh", but mention nothing about which texts have this reading or which ones say Moses.
Then we finally come to the brand new Holman Standard which again incorrectly reads "Moses" in their version, but in their footnote they tell us: "SOME Hebrew manuscripts, the LXX and the Vulgate read Moses, and other Hebrew manuscripts read Manasseh."
Do you begin to see how confusing and contradictory all these "scholars" are?
Matthew Henry rehearses the explanation given by many commentators that the Hebrew text has placed the letter "n" slightly over the name Manasseh and that it should not be read as Manasseh but Moses, and that the rabbis did this so as not to shame the memory of Moses with such an ungodly grandson. However Matthew Henry notes: "But the learned bishop Patrick takes this to be an idle conceit of the rabbin, and supposes this Jonathan to be of some other family of the Levites."
Commentators are a funny bunch. What one affirms with all confidence is absolutely denied by another. Only the Holy Bible is inspired, not the commentators. It is silly to suppose God would direct rabbis to alter His word "to protect the honour of Moses". This is a totally humanistic view of Scripture. The sins of Moses himself stain the very pages of Holy Writ. It was because of Moses' unbelief that God did not allow him to enter the promised land. God has no qualms about recording the sins of even His greatest prophets, let alone one of their grandsons.
If we go to the Scriptures themselves we see that the Hebrew text says Manasseh and not Moses, and the only grandson of Moses mentioned in the Bible is a man named Shebuel, not Jonathan as mentioned here. See 1 Chronicles 23:15-16 and 26:24.
In the Bible there are three different people named Gershom and three different men named Manasseh, let alone all the ones so named that are not recorded in Scripture.
When will people get it through their heads that the "scholars", bible translators and commentators are all in disagreement with each other and none of them are inspired by God? Only God in His sovereignty and faithfulness to His promises can put together the true Holy Bible, and He has already done so in the greatest Bible in history - the Authorized King James Holy Bible.
The very last verse in this interesting book of Judges also applies to the modern day Bible Babel we see. "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Will Kinney