RyanL:
While reading a parody site (
catholicoutlook.com/rpv.php ), I came across the following:
Because I couldn’t believe the NIV translators
actually did this, I pulled out my “Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English with Interlinear Translation by Alfred Marshal”, and sure enough…this is completely true! This is
by far the most insidious and subtle apologetics technique I have come across yet.
Does anyone know of other instances of translational undermining or other such techniques?
In reference to the translation of chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians in the King James Version, the Haydock Commentary of 1859 says:I cannot but here take notice of an unfair way of proceeding, even in the best Protestant translation, by sometimes adding in this chapter the word
unknown, and sometimes omitting it. All Catholics are willing to allow, that by the gift of
speaking tongues, St. Paul means tongues
unknown, though the word
unknown is not found so much as once, neither in the Latin, nor even so much as in any one Greek manuscript. The Protestant translators,
for tongues, have put
unknown tongues, in all the verses, where St. Paul blames the abuse of this gift; to wit, ver. 2. 4. 13. 14. 19. 27. but they make no such addition, where St. Paul either commends, or permits the speaking in tongues not understood, as ver. 5. where he says,
I would have you to speak tongues; and ver. 29. where he says,
forbid not to speak tongues. It is evident, that there is the very same reason for the addition, or the omission equally in all these verses. Is this to translate faithfully? I would by no means judge rashly, even of any adversary; but it looks as if both the addition and omission was with a design of making this popular objection seem to be of greater force against this point of discipline, and practice of the Catholics, and indeed of all Christian Churches [of using Latin or ancient Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, etc. in the liturgy instead of the vernacular]. (Witham)
