KJV vs NKJV on 'Jew', 'Jewry', Jewish, Jewess & Daughter of Judah

In the scope of modern Bible translations many make the error of believing that the King James Version, (AV 1611 and updates), and the New King James Version are equivalent translations. The translators of the NKJV have argued that the two texts are essentially the same and have tried to promote the differences as minor, claiming they are translating off the same text family.

Riplinger and Waite though, in other studies have found the two texts not to be equivalent at all, and not to be translated completely off the same text families.
The comparison here is only on the Jewish terms we have looked at throughout this blog, comparing KJV with NKJV, in light of the verse count, i.e. # verses containing the term, in each translation.

We find there is a definite difference, and graphical representation of the changes will show that it is not a 'one for one' translation, but that significant translation differences have occurred on these terms, as well as others not related to the doctrine of the Jews.

In the first graph above, only the term, Daughter of Judah does not change.

The second graph, likewise shows changes, and while the changes may or may not appear significant (that discussion will follow), any change in the Word is a cause for concern due to the doctrine of inerrancy. While we see a word or two here or there between, for example the Tyndale New Testament and that of the King James Committee, (e.g. love vs charity) when both words mean the same and the Greek is the same for both, we cannot ignore dozens or more changes in one word across what is supposed to be an update and not a totally new translation. the differences below are for the terms: Jew, "The Jews", Children of Israel, Tribe, Tribes and Judah, and we can see the greatest dissension of terms in the word 'Jews' which decreases from 399 to 230, a 169 verse inclusion difference! 'Children of Israel'
decreases by a 49 verse count, which is at least better than the modern paraphrases which have omitted the term or retranslated it into 'Sons of Israel' (KJV includes both terms in places). While 'bar Y'israel' can be translated both, the reason traditional texts translated 'ben' as children is that the references are to the nation including women and children. 'Sons' leaves out at least 50%!. And raises issues of error and inconsistency across hundreds of years, hardly an element of support for preservation.

Overall Comparisons

One last quick comparison before looking at statistical considerations: let's compare overall changes on these terms:


1611KJV 400.0769231
1982-NKJV 363.6923077




No one can really ignore the dramatic decrease in averages. Next blog will look at whether it is statistically significant or not, but a note of caution is necessary: tests for statistical significance when one is dealing with few terms, can fail to show a difference for more than one reason. One can be poor methodology, another can be because of too little data. In everything else I have used statistical tests of significance for, though, when you do not find the test statistically significant, all one can say is that it was not found, not that there was not a difference. However, when dealing with verse counts in the Word of God, statistical tests are of only secondary importance, as a verification, since even one change in a word, term or expression can be a serious issue because of issues of inerrancy. While modern scholars have no qualms with wide margins in interpretation, traditionally, any change over time warranted the scrutiny of scholars. More tommorrow. ekbest

The Tabernacle Across Time and Translations

Just a short little entry because I have not been too current lately on this blog: the pattern of the word "Tabernacle" across time and translations in verse count. Notice the erratic pattern, more than most, but here the drop from the high count of KJV is in the 1890 Darby, and is not recovered in the 1901 ASV. I have included an earlier comparison between the two terms. The word 'Tabernacle' is important for the fullness of understanding: the blood is applied to the Tabernacle in Heaven with the Lamb's sacrifice:

Rev 15:5 And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened: Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.

While it may be translated as 'tent' or 'tent of meeting' or other wording the dissension in this term is disturbing in that other terms rob the dignity and fullness of the meaning of the tabernacle in foreshadowing the Tabernacle in Heaven and what it meant in the blood covenant. More later...ekbest

Places of Worship: Temple, Synagogue, Tent of Meeting: a Composite Graph

This is just a short entry to collate a comparison visually among terms already considered in part. Note that all the terms involve places of worship: Temple, Temple of the Lord, Tabernacle , Tent of Meeting, Synagogue, Synagogues. A note from before: the 'concept' of a synagogue by many modern theologians is often attributed as post 1 a.d., but this is of course ridiculous, as synagogue worship is mentioned in the New Testament and Jesus worships and announces his purpose and 'inaugural address' of Isaiah 61 in a Synagogue. Some attribute synagogue worship to post-Exilic times, claiming the first form as river bank worship in captivity, but there is one earlier mention: in Psalms, the literal word synagogue is used with a literal meaning indicating synagogues as early as David's time!

The idea of a 'place' to worship is only a partial concept of what God intended for Israel: his initial 'meeting' was one on one in the Garden, which continued with the inclusion later of altar worship. (Noah, Abraham, Abel etc). When Moses received the tablets of the Commandments, on one side was written the Law and on the other, the plans for the Tabernacle: the demand for God's righteousness met with the grace of a sacrifice which led into the Holy of Holies, and a High Priest who could bring about a meeting between God and Man, with the encasement of the white linens of glory and righteousness. Law and Grace from the beginning, and far more, far far more than merely a meeting place, for the glory of God in the pillar of cloud and fire led and defended Israel, as bridegroom and bride.

The next thing that happened though, is Israel got tired ofwandering and decided the ark of the Covenant should rest permanently in Shiloh. David dedicates Ornan's threshing floor, and Solomon, in a sea of blood offering, dedicates a Temple of Stone which stands until the exile. After the exile, there is again a temple, smaller, with smaller local synagogues, and the idea of ikklesia, or a breathing living body with Messiah as head becomes lost in the background.

As the church comes into existence, life through the HOly Spirit is breathed and the Temple comes to dwell within through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comforter, the Temple which cannot be destroyed, and made without hands.

These terms then, are no peripheral concern of minimal importance for they reflect whether we keep God's concepts of His House and body or our own.

While I have chosen a bar graph this time for all terms, one can see that as with other terms represented which have varied over time, there is an increased use of the word "Temple" and "Tent of Meeting" which is not found in the KJV. Since accuracy is the most critical 'value' in translation, an extreme increase can be as bad as an omission but both depend on a true rendering.

The New Living, NIV, NKJV and Holman go a little 'crazy' in overuse of the word 'temple' and a more complex study is required for when and where than this day's blog has time to address. Tent of Meeting is used in some more recent Torah and prayerbook translations as well as in modern. One can see also a divergence in stability or consistency of mention of the terms between the pre-shoah and post shoah translations.

Remember that the main Old Testament source for word studies and resources in New translations come from Kittel, Grundman and crew: this is not to say that their scholarship in general areas was inaccurate, but one cannot argue plausibly that their firm committment and sponsorship of Nazi ideals, ideologies and apologetics can not have colored their translations. [a former blog notes 39 key terms as done solely by Kittel or Grundman.] A little more data will be added next time but one should note that the terms related to the Temple are far less consistent across time and from pre to post-shoah translations than are the terms 'synagogue' and 'synagogues'. The implications and explications still need more exploration.

A last and repetitive note throughout this blog: graphical representations are not statistical representations, although we have seen many statistically significant differents in simple Student's t tests comparisons. [pre to post shoah, mostly]
Secondly, statistically significant differences are not conclusions or explanations: more work still needs to be done to discover 'why' the new translators changed the pattern: they don't appear to be talking about it.
Lastly, there is not anywhere near enough reason to suggest that it was done ON PURPOSE so one should not use that to beat up on modern translators: there are enough problems there. The purposefulness is more likely to have been Kittel's and the Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des Neuen Deutschelands or the Reich Institute for the History of the New Germany, whose effort was to eradicate Jewish mention and influence throughout Christian doctrine, practice and training.

This is a little bit repetitive of the former blog on the Temple and synagogue, but this histogram shows the change in all terms a little better than the previous blog on the same topic which used a line graph and is visually difficult to use for more than trend comparisons.

More later. ta ta. ekbest

The Great Gift of William Tyndale: and a few odd little notes

I intend until I die, which may not be all that far in the distance to continue hammering at the point, that there is a new 'neo-marcionism' growing in the Church and in Modern Bible Translations which is so serious as to pose a threat to the veracity and purity of the perception of the Word of God, for the real Word of God remains extant, pure and accurate. The Great Gift of William Tyndale, the Martyr for the Word of God, a gentle spoken but deliberate rebel against his times and theology and Church policies, the great gift he gave us all, was the Word of God brought back to reign in the heart instead of the 'renditions' of Vatican and State parlors.

The attitudes back then, in the late 1500s, were not very different at all from those which are out there now: The King of England did not really want the commoners to have the 'real' Bible, even though his reasons were less than pure. By the time of James, who some had argued was a homosexual although that is not established, still as more of a secularist than anything else, and dabbling in Greek and Hebrew, he did not think English would do justice to the original in translation. But the critical issue was not whether commoners should own a Bible they could read, nor whether an English version was wise, but over who should be reigning in power, and England, and the Vatican,like the United States today, have never felt that the Word of God should hold the final authority in human citizenship and commerce, in a broad sense.

We say, even often "Jesus is Lord" but when we act on that statement, more and more in this past century than any other, wars begin, of a heavenly nature, but translating into earthly ones. The soldiers of this war are few and often ragtag, since modern scholarship and the state share the same in common now as then: they do not want the real Jesus as Lord; they do not want the real Word of God as authority, and those of us who have walked down this avenue are in the beginning overwhelmed and astonished to find even lofty powers congregating to decide 'who we are' and'why we say what we say'. Why , if the REAL Word of God was merely man's thoughts and mythologies, why would anyone care which version we use, or whether its 'moralistic' teachings might affect society? Why do Kings and Presidents shudder a little when God's Word and People begin to move and stir? Because the truth is, and history attests, God's Word does have power, Jesus is LORD and can prove it to even unbelieving Kings, and the greatest and best social and political movements which have bettered society and humankind, started with the Word of God and believers on their knees in tiny churches, willing even to give their lives rather than live under the tyranny that accompanies unbelief.

Whether you agree politically or doctrinally with some of the moves that started on the knees of belief, still one must acknowledge them. Did you know that the demise of the Iron Curtain and the Solidarity movement in Communist Poland began in the churches following intense prayer? Or the fall of the Berlin wall? Or the destruction of racial barriers and other inequities with Martin Luther King? or the beginnings of America in which due to the Word of God in the heart, Puritans, Pilgrims and other Separatists could not abide living in the compromise of Europe's monarchies.

Now, the Word of God merely repeated, or used for control, gutted of its true power and Love, has wreaked havoc in history also, and critics of the Word of God glut themselves with repeated stories of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and other brutal conquests which they claim are indicative of 'religion' or Christian belief, but the truth is neither of those were of true belief, but quite the opposite: they were products of a nationalistic conquest using only certain segregated portions of the Word to inculcate a spirit of overthrow rather than taking the WHOLE Word of God. A Partial Gospel always causes harm ALWAYS. The Whole and true Gospel 'turns the world upside down' but never violently, though many who are fearful cause violence in reaction to it.

The Partial or Seditioned Gospel

Best defined, a 'partial gospel' is one which is incomplete, greatly seditioned, severely handicapped by the ordinances of men or 'interpretative books or notes', or one in which only certain portions which are deemed socially or politically acceptable are used. A Partial Gospel or Dissensioned Gospel, may be one in which the real Word of God is mixed in whole or part with political or State Agendas or the private agendas of little despots each wishing their own way in the world. Many Churches today preach only on certain topics, even evangelical brands, because they do not wish to offend potential members, so issues of doctrines of the Mystery of the Jews, or Eschatology, or the Blood atonement will not divide, although they have no wisdom in realizing they MUST divide for Christian worship to be real. How can you have a bloodless, Messiahless Gospel? What would it be if not for the blood of Jesus? Just another world religion with moralisms,easily cast aside and easily controlled. The latter fits nicely into the realm of the State and Denominational Religion: it keeps the pews polished and the air conditioners on in summer. It sends no one away and promises heaven for everyone even unbelievers except for maybe Hitler, Attila the Hun and the people next door who block the driveway.

The Cost of Loving the REAL WORD OF GOD


As I sit at my desk, I have hanging above a poster from Voices ofthe Martyrs which shows the 'restricted nations' and 'Hostile Areas' in which nations either forbid Christians (and usually Jews also)access to Christian worship and materials, or in which there is little protection for Christians who live their faith. I colored in a few states we have lived in as well, who have such animosity to real Christian worship and practice, especially Messianic and 'Pentecostal' in the broad sense, that long term residence becomes undesireable. Acts of violence go unattended and unprosecuted, and Civil rights violations occur on a regular basis, to the point of leaving the Christian citizen without protection, save from their Lord and Savior.
Would you believe in the US today that groups of Muslims would be allowed in your house without a court order? Or that persons who are Hindus, or Sikh and who run prostitution rings could be allowed to sit in or even attempt to take over Christian ministries or websites? Or that a community with big name denominations, old school, could attempt to run people off by setting loose certain groups on believers by harming cars, property, interfering on a regular basis with shopping, business, finances, etc just to show their 'displeasure' with their form of belief---even to the point of trying toforbid worship and bible study alone at home?

That's a pretty powerful Gospel which sets local dignitaries to trembling in their boots that some aging lady in her 50s might turn a little town upside down and teach children to love the LORD, and follow him instead of dope dealing peers. Its the 'pretty powerful Gospel' that led the Martyrs to the stake, kissing wives husbands and children goodbye, because their Gospel, perfect pure and true really leads to a Life forever in the love of God, in a real PLACE and not just some mythological utopia to keep morons in line. That is why this issue of Modern Bible Translations is so important: it is not an ivory tower theological issue but one for every believer: NOT JUST WHAT BIBLE TRANSLATION YOU PREFER, BUT WHICH 'VERSION' IS THE TRUE GOSPEL, THE UN-SEDITIONED WORD OF GOD WHICH HAS SURVIVED SINCE FIRST BREATHED INTO THE WORLD.

This is the gift of Tyndale: this Word, expressed in nature, expressed in Writing, expressed by the prophets,expressed in the Messiah, the incarnation of the Torah, god-made-man, this WORD OF GOD, the LOGOS, and the written expression thereof, may not be partialed out, may not be used in part, or have the most central parts deleted or ignored. The power of God: is any theologian or President so powerful that he can cut or paste what he does not agree with? Who is Sovereign then? Tyndale confronted both angry State Theologians and an angry King, but he knew he was right: they were keeping the truth from the people, denying dying people the right to know the Word and attain Salvation and the great hope of Life within the presence of our God and Redeemer, a life forever in real Love, not this shabby earthly sort with regularly comes undone. If you stand for the Word, even try to prove it is true (it proves itself), or show that the powers that be are attempting to dilute and dismember its inconvenient truths, it is no different now than then: you may suffer, even to death, and worldwide, we are not hearing the stories of martyrs who are regularly dying for their faith and the WORD OF GOD.

Do you believe? Stand. There is a portion of scripture which says

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

He gave you His Life, did you give Him yours? The scripture above shows how we overcome in the LORD.

1. by the Blood of the Lamb
2. by the WORD of their testimony,and
3. by loving not life unto the death.

Let the mayors, governors, and Presidents shiver a little at the Power of the God who made us. Who will stand for the Word of God? We send our sons to war to protect a temporal nation, even knowing they could die, for oil rights, defense etc ofsomething which is passing away. We go down to the school board in strength to oust a teacher with a history of harming children, or go to a civil rights protest that turns violent risking our lives for a principle. Will we lay down our lives in strong, gentle assertions that it is no small issue when the Word of God, finally free in at least part of the world, comes under every admixture,error, attack and censure? Who will stand for the Word of God? Who will lay down their life? How much do you really believe? Will we stop using the 'that was then,this is now ' excuse? I would rather die for the Word of God or be banished or exiled, than die whining about some far lesser right or purpose, or nothing at all. Lives are short, and not to be foolishly wasted, but I will stand knowing that there is nothing greater for which to lay down my life. The Great Gift of Tyndale was this lesson.

King of the Jews after the Third Reich

Discussed some time before, this data is being re-posted for consideration. Recall that the Kingship of Jesus Christ was at the center of theological discussions between the Deutsche Christen, the compromised Church and the Bekennende Kirche, or Confessing Church. Was the Fuhrer, Lord? Or was the Messiah, the "King of the Jews"? understandably an unpopular title in WWII when a deliberate marcionic knife cut through doctrines. It was also the topic of eminence in the Barmen Declaration, when the gauntlet was thrown before the Synod about taking an oath which declared first allegiance to Hitler and not to Christ.

Of the several patterns of counts which emerge, this shows rather dramatically visually the disruption in verse counts in modern translations after the RSV, which appeared 7 years after the end of the war. In the early post-war period, theology, the WCC and Germany were still debating the behavior during the Shoah of the Church, and many Nazi loyalists, apologists and theologians were either 'denazified' or defrocked of their positions, such as Hirsch, and Kittel was arrested by the French, although the one firm thread which remained were the Biblia Hebraica and Wortenbuch of the Kittels, Gerhard and Rudolph, his father. It has been noted in a previous blog on the Worterbuch that at least 39 sections of the Lexicon were written by Kittel, Grundman and members of the Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des Neuen Deutschelands or the Reich Institute for the History of the New Germany, a formidable influence on the Gleichschaltung of the Church. (See Kittel, Grundman and the Lexicon that ate Chicago) The pattern referred to, occurring similarly in many terms, is a steady continuum of mention varying only very slightly up until the time of Kittel, followed by not necessarily a decline in mention, but an erratic pattern of mention. Several modern translations keep the verse count (# verses mentioning the word or phrase at least once) steady, such as the NLT, TEV and NIV and NRSV (although the paraphrases, NLT and TEV are usually the biggest offenders), NASV, NKJV and the Holman show the greatest change, and it seems often that NASV led the was in making the first trends towards change in many terms including this one.

The Kingship of Jesus, central to this term "King of the Jews" was the plumbline for division between the longstanding cohesive Lutheran church in Germany: it divided between those of conservative and liberal doctrine, between camps in the Synod, between Nazi Party members and those opposed to the requirement, between those who who agreed even fervently to see Hitler as 'Lord' or Fuhrer, the correct rendering of the word, or those who would give allegiance only to HItler. It was the critical issue which was never considered in the Synod which never took place, when the oath of allegiance was to have been required.

Some will say no doubt that there is too loose a connection between the events in the Deutsche Christen and the trend towards chaotic patterns of mention or declension of mention in Modern Bible translations which follow the war, but the Worterbuch and Hebraica became so standard fare both here and in Europe and in other English speaking areas or Western influence areas, that one cannot discount the influence. Further, remember, that ALL (even NKJV) new translations and paraphrases used the Kittel's work as the basis for re-translation, and ALL used the Westcott and Hort genesis, Nestle-Aland, with the Biblia Hebraica influenced by the peshitta and Samaritan texts, dismissed by conservative rabbinical translations. It is interesting to note that the Concordance I use now, "Strongest Strong's' while focused on the KJV and previous strongs (1873 KJV) nonetheless has synthesized the NIV conference issues as well. I will explore that in a later blog.

[To those who pray, keep us in your prayers as this blog has been very wrongfully hacked and ruined on more than one occasion, and the info is very important for those involved in this issue( which should be all) to consider and build on.

ekbest

Messiah and Christ in the ASV and NASV: 1901-1971 Before and after the Shoah

Christ



Messiah (verse count)

Christ, Over Time and Translations

Just a quick note: the word "Christ" across time and translations. Again, as in previous, note that while the Westcott and Hort translations precipitate the profound changes toward either dissension or erratic patterns of inclusion, the real culprit looks again like the Shoah years. Why? Because Kittel and Grundman and their group of theologians in an effort to make the Bible compatible with National Socialist principles, appear to have prejudiced many terms. We have looked primarily at Jewish terms, but this is included due to a corollary extreme change in the word Messiah we will look at next.

We have already discussed in an earlier blog the comparisons between the term 'Messiah ' and 'Christ': both become less stable and more erratic in the post WWII translations and paraphrases, but to remind all, this is a slight variation on the discussion before, because while 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are taken by many to be interchangeable, and perhaps even 'Messiah' preferable, they do refer to the Messiah ship of the Holy One of Israel, to Jesus or Yshua as one would prefer, but Messiah , Messias has a counterpoint in the Hebrew of Meschiach, while Christ is a Hellenization of Messiah: it is what Messiah was called in Aramaic and Greek.

The Gospel was written to the 'Greek' world: beyond Greece, it was the 'Business English' of the day, and with cause, for the Word turned to the accomplishment of the prophecy of the light which would come to the Gentiles. This is also one of the objections many Jews have to the New Covenant being the completion of Canon, because it was in their eyes not written by Jews (although it was, from Jesus to Paul, John and others), and because it was not written in sacred Hebrew, but in what seemed and rightly so a Gentile, worldly vernacular language.

Grundman and Kittel and the academic and theological circles they were a part of were servants to the Nazi Government and the Deutsche Christen. During the Reich, Hitler and Goebbels and others attempted on all levels of society to 'coordinate' and infiltrate every Estate and Politic to meld into and assimilate into the Reich and Reich principles. All levels of society from Travel to politics, from Music and the Arts to Education, to all vocations were to be brought into the Gleichschaltung, or the 'Great Coordination'.

The Church and the Bible did not escape the 'Coordination' efforts. As mentioned previously, Kittel and Grundman worked with other theologians to redefine and reconstitute graduate theological education and pursuits, including textual criticism and doctrine. As early as 1933, Goebbels declared in a speech that a true German Christian did not need the Old Testament whose time had passed away in his view, and which had far too much Jewish influence for the new progressive Germany. Over the following years, he would decry Jewish influence in Christian doctrine and practice over and over. An attempt was made to rewrite the New Testament to fit in to Nazi philosophies and ideologies, eminent of which were

1. The view of Jesus as Aryan and
2. of a natural but elevated birth, (a product of rape)and
3. of Paul being of an inferior stance, a rabbi trying
to 'interpret' Jesus' sayings, and having an 'inferiority' complex,^{note 1} and
4. Paul's teaching in Roman's about the premiere position of the Jews as chosen,
not forsaken, and as firstborn. Additionally, the idea of the Jews as eternal deeply troubled the Nazis who were attempting to permanantly erase even the bloodline.

While there were many other issues the new group confronted to assimilate a new New Testament and theology with nazi ideals, one other refers to the concept of Führer, which may be literally seen as 'Lord'. A popular saying among the Confessing Church members was 'No Führer but Christ', alluding to the Lordship of Yshua HaMeschiach, Jesus Christ, and the Barmen Declaration of Barth and others addresses the critical nature of the Lordship question, declaring 'Christ as Führer' instead of Hitler as Lord, Deliverer and Savior of Germany. The Lordship issue was the foundation of the great split over the Oath which Hitler tried to demand of the Deutsche Christen clergy at the Synod which was disrupted by war. True Christians in the Lutheran church would not swear their allegiance to the Reich and Hitler, which was to be required, as was party membership for those holding posts in the church.

Since Hitler wanted a 'Messiah' status, and a position emulative of 'The Christ', it is hardly surprising that a dissension in terms would appear. What did Kittel, Grundman and others change?

1. First, Kittel's father, a noted anti-Semite, retranslated the Old Testament based upon the new texts with Samaritan influence, changing thousands of years of the traditional use of the Ben Chayim or Masoretic text. It was called the Biblia Hebraica.
2. The son, Gerhard Kittel, following in his father's footsteps developed the new Lexicon, the 'Wortenbuch' or Word book, in which scholars, uncertain of the shades of meaning of a particular word may go for more expert renderings of Hebrew or Greek scholars on the exact meaning(s) of a word. Within the Lexicon, at least 38 major sections were written by those on the Reich committee to sedition traditional Christian practice and belief! And Kittel edited the whole thing! Given the ardent belief that the Scriptures and doctrine must be changed, it would hardly be reasonable to assume given his many writings that he was in any way objective, though modern bible publishers deny any slant. They also denied for years that he had hardly any Nazi ties, though Martin Buber credited him with being the man who made 'Anti-Semitic ' theologically acceptable'.

Both Christ and Messiah, as mentioned previously, appear as stable translations even in non-KJV texts until after the 1901 ASV, but from 1952 and the RSVon, the terms vary in representation in modern translations and paraphrases. One would have to assume some sedition of the concept of Lordship, since the terms Christ and Messiah imply King, Lord, and Deliverer....of all....and the JEWS.


__________________________________________
^{Note 1} Due to his teaching about dying to self

Significant Differences: The Attrition of Jewish Mention in the Modern Bible Translations

Finally, even in Wikipedia:
Attempts to 'de-Judify' the Bible

"Some churches remained led by German Christians until 1945. In 1939 with the approval of 75% of the German Protestant churches the Eisenacher "Institute for Research and the Elimination of Jewish influence on German Church Life" was founded, led by Walter Grundmann. One of its main tasks was to compile a "People's Testament" ("Volkstestaments") in the sense of what Alfred Rosenberg called a "Fifth Gospel", to announce the myth of the "Aryan Jesus". It became clear in 1994 that the Testament's poetic text was written by the famous ballad-poet and proprietor of the Eugen-Diederichs-Verlages , Lulu von Strauß und Torney. Despite broad church support for it (even many Confessing Christians advocated such an approach, in the hope that the disaffiliation of 1937 to 1940 could be curbed), the first edition of the text did not meet with the expected enthusiastic response.

"
On the original data, I promised some time ago in this blog to continue with some data analysis that would go beyond mere graphical representation of the attrition of Jewish mention in the New translations. Before outlining tests of statistical significance though, there are a few reminders essential to the understanding of what happened to our Bible, including a summary of points made previously:

1. Data collection was via online search engines, intra-site engines, which almost entirely pull up VERSE COUNT vs WORD COUNT. That means that the totals you see graphically represented in this blog/research are total # of verses which mention the term of interest, e.g. The term "Jews" occurs 257 times in 244 verses in the KJV, in the search process of Blueletterbible.com or .org. While some may feel it is an inaccurate representation, since we are consistent in using this method across translations, it essentially 'factors out' and allows a reasonable comparison. Since exact word counts are only available for some translations, and original RV translations rarely have online counts at all, I have chosen this method as a means of obtaining comparative data. Sources include Bible.com, Crosswalk.com [Bible tools section]; Blueletterbible.com/.org; and several others to check accuracy, including the few singular online translation sites with intra-searches. There was some variation among search engines, although rarely by more than 1 or 2, and when this occurred, I took the most frequently represented count.

2. Outliers-Contrary to the new book by that title, for those not used to Statistical jargon, an 'outlier' technically is a data point or value which lies far outside of most data values, and may skew statistical significance and/or 'slope' or 'gradient' of a relationship between variables in any direction which does not represent the 'obvious' relationship. For example, if a class takes an exam and 99.9% of the students make between 78 and 82, and one student makes 100, that student's test score would probably in a one time testing be considered an 'outlier'. If you took the average of tests with the high score the mean would be [just an example based upon the range], 86.7*, but without the '100' would be '80'. Most researchers report the data both ways and let the reader decide what to make of it. This is the convention I have used also---for example, in the term 'HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL', a term used for Messiah,
you may note that the relationship among the data would look very different if it were not for the TEV count---that could skew for example a test of statistical significance to look greater than if that translation had been left out the count. It occurs in the opposite vein also.

3. One and two tailed tests. I cannot give a course in Statistics in this little blog even to scholars in Bible and theology who may not have taken it in college, but briefly, I am reporting both one and two tailed t tests of significance, although as with most 'counts' which make logical sense, the two tailed is more logical. Still, though depending on the question, the one tailed is included for perusal. If you are a theologian, ask someone from your Math dept to give you a quick explanation, or several very efficient ones can be found on the net. I have mostly used Student's T
to compare a number of terms, and occasionally a more conservative measure of Welch's T, and each gives the mean, the 'variation' around the mean, the 'standard deviation' (95% of data occurs within 2 SD of the mean), degrees of freedom which will make sense to your engineer and math friends, and the 'probability' that given the data observed, that the versions differ on the term SIGNIFICANTLY. Please remember that statistics can be used to skew data in many directions, and 'truth' does not rely necessarily on statistical significance though we feel comfortable with it. CRITICAL NOTE: Since the Bible is within its pages declared to be inerrant and perfect, even a small change in raw count can be significant in terms of the veracity of modern texts, and a great change would have to indicate something gone very wrong. And, in short, something did go very very wrong, as the effect of the 'Nazi Church' the Deutsche Christen and its philosophies and scholarship did indeed have an effect on the modern translations as great or greater than the sedition of texts by Westcott and Hort based upon the fallacious finds of the late 18th century antiquities called the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the Sinaiticus.

RESULTS FOR SEVERAL JEWISH TERMS

Looking across several translations including the Douay, The KJV, the ASV, The RSV, the NASV, NIV, TEV, Living, Holman, (see previous articles) etc we find the following:

ISRAEL (Pre-Reich vs Post Reich}

Mean: 2348 pre 2084 post
SD: 149.93 275.91post
N: 4 8

Welch's T: two tailed: p=.0608
Confidence Interval: 95% CI
One tailed : .05 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
(note that the 2 tailed approaches significance and would be at 90%, so it is counted.)
-------------------------------------------------------

CHILDREN OF ISRAEL- across translations, pre and post Shoah

t=4.97
Mean: pre 607 post: 77.1
SD 23.3 208

CI: 95%
p= .001 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
with outlier removed,n two tailed,one tailed: p=.000281
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEWS

unpaired t test

t=3.28
SE=50.8
df=10
p=.0083

pre:
Mean=314
SD=88.4
range 234-399
..............

post:
mean=212
SD=18.5
range 188-233

95% CI: p=.0083 STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
---------------------------------------------------------

JEWISH

t=-1.96
sd= 33.4
df=10
p=.078 95% CI [prob would fall within range on 90%]

APPROACHING SIGNIFICANCE AT 95% CI

-------------------------------------------------
JEWESS

t=2.18
SD=.935
df=10
p=.054

STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

-----------------------------------------------
ZION

T=.855
SD=34.4
DF=10
P=.412

note: THIS IS NOT SIGNIFICANT, AT 95% CI, BUT NOTE DIFFS IN STANDARD DEVIATIONS:
PRE-SHOAH: 1.26 AND POST: 41.1. TWO TAILED.
------------------------------------------------------
"JEWRY"

T=1.00
DF=3
PAIRED Student's i
p=.391 Note: this is b/c the Douay and Darby are in the pre 1901 and 1st ASV.
-----------------------
TRIBE
t=-.890
sd=31.7
df=10

p=.395
95% CI. (needs a 90% CI run)

_----------------------------------

TRIBES

t=-.798
SD=25.3
DF=10

p=.444

mean : pre 114, sd=4.36 vs post 127, sd=30.1

Note that while the power of this test may not detect at 95% a statistical difference, it does note a great change in deviation around mean (more variation], and may be significant in either a one tailed or 90% CI test.
---------------------------------------------------

"DAUGHTER OF JUDAH"

T=1.83
SD=1.34
DF=10
P=.098 AT TWO TAILED 95% BUT: AT ONE TAILED 95% P=.049

APPROACHING OR STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
-----------------------------------------------

MORE TERMS WILL FOLLOW BUT PART OF DATA WAS STOLEN

____________
_
This is an invented mean based on the high and low score, not on what would be a number of data values.

The Synagogue Between the 1901 ASV and the 1971 NASV

This is just a short continuation of yesterday's data on the places of worship and body of worshippers. We have already mentioned that the term 'Synagogue' and 'Synagogues' are predominately in the New Testament in all translations. Here we see, a more dramatic change in the term, between the ASV in 1901 and the NASV in 1971. Seventy years, and a two wars, the second a Holocaust which wiped away 1/3 of the World's Jewish population also resulted in a decrease in mention of the word "Synagogues" between the first and second edition, although there is a +1 increase in the word 'synagogue' alone. Overall, though, the trend is decidedly downward.

Psa 74:8 They said in their hearts, Let us destroy them together: they have burned up all the synagogues of God in the land.

ekbest08

The Temple, The Temple of the LORD

Well, this is the second time I've had to write this blog at 2 in the morning due to hacking from what becomes of a person without Christ. I suspect many of you who do your own work, know what its like to finish a lengthy piece, and have it disappear at the hands of those who haven't figured out it is wrong to plagiarize and steal. In any event, I will begin again.

While we have seen in the other studies the dissension in the mention of terms related to the Jews and Israel, and have discussed the possible reasons for the changes, first between the Received Text of KJV vs all other translations and secondly between the texts before WWII and Gerhard Kittel and the 'Wortenbuch', we now turn to a short discussion with more following later of the place the Children of Israel met to worship and the Children of Israel as a body of worshippers with their God: the Tabernacle, The Temple, the Synagogue, and the body itself, the Congregation, Congregation of Israel which become the later 'ikklesia' in the New Testament post-Pentecost worship and walk with God.

The Tabernacle

It does not behoove us to discuss in length all the parts of the Tabernacle for most who will read this will be somewhat familiar with the plan and meaning of the Tabernacle. It was meant to show 'Emmanu El' God with us, and the tribes of Israel encamped around the curtained Tabernacle in the Desert. The plan for the Tabernacle had been given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai, written on the other side of the law. This is a most interesting 'other side' to the Law, or Torah, for the Torah showed the Righteousness of God, while the Tabernacle showed the Grace of God. In the King James Bible, the Tabernacle is mentioned 328 ties in 297 verses according to BlueletterBible.org, and is used consistently to describe the place of worship in the desert, centered among the tribes of Israel, with Moses and Aaron encamped at the front scarlet entry curtain, the Prophet of God and the High Priest of God, leading Israel into worship. Given its eminent significance in showing Messiah and God's plan for Salvation and Israel, with the outer curtains leading into the Holy Place, then other curtains leading into the Holy of Holies where the Shekinah Glory of God rested on the 'mercy seat' [the propitiation], with the HIgh Priest in attendance to the yearly sacrifice, reflecting the Tabernacle in Heaven and the salvation of Messiah, and the place where the cloud of testimony met, we cannot help but understand why these terms regarding the body of believers, the place the worship and the place God appears to them in the desert is so critical and why any dissension or alteration of mention leads to both doctrinal error and a sinful dealing with God's Word.

The chart above is preliminary as only one source is used and reflects a verse count, not a word count for the terms Tabernacle, Tent of Meeting, Congregation, Congregation of Israel, Temple, and Temple of the LORD and Synagogue.

Tabernacle vs the Tent of Meeting

It is worthy to note that 'Tent of Meeting' appears as a translation in many new translations but does not appear in the KJV. It is a lessening semantically of the word Tabernacle, for the Tabernacle refers to the 'whole' of the process and center of worship, not a stone building such as the Temple, but a living breathing body of believers with the Glory of God amidst them, leading and guiding. 'Tent of Meeting' is a reference only to a place where worship takes place and could be interchangeable with other religious worship outside Christianity and Judaism.

Synagogue

Likewise, the word 'Synagogue' appears only once in any translation in the Old Testament or Tenach, which is of itself remarkable. Most modern scholars argue that the concept of the modern Synagogue came only later past the destruction of the Temple in 70ad, but this is obviously untrue since Jesus gives his 'Inaugural address" of Isaiah 61 in the Synagogue and not at the Temple in Jerusalem. The reason the Old Testament mention in psalms is so significant is that it occured inthe time of David, pre-exilic, and the word syn-a-goga is the word used. Some felt the idea of a Synagogue as a smaller place of worship apart from the Temple was a post-exilic template based upon worship in Babylon at river bank gatherings on 'holy ground' but the use of the word and concept is set forever in the holy Scriptures by the psalmist!

While in the next segment more will be discussed regarding the usage of the words, one can note in the chart above that the same general pattern again holds and probably for the same reason: by the time Kittel and his Nazi [literally] theologian colleagues rewrote the Standard lexicon primarily used today in the Western world, something obviously happened and changed far beyond the multiplicity of changes between the KJV and the later Westcott and Hort retranslations off the Tischendorf texts. In several cases there is extreme overmention, in which the original words were replaced by other causing a surge but without the cohesion of a system of description of places of worship and the body of worshippers.

Still, the chaotic and erratic pattern can be seen post WWII, and again it would seem that the influence of the Deutsche Christen and the Kittels with other NSDAP member 'scholars' caused change.

More to follow ekbest

Gerhard Kittel, Grundman, and the 'Wörterbuch'- The Lexicons That Ate Chicago

"Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don't change it!"

Heretofore we have primarily spoken of the differences in older translations, particularly the Authorized Version, the KJV, and the modern Bible translations and versions which are often 'paraphrases' and even summaries. While there is a clear overall trend of a pejoration of terms related to the Jews, including an outright overall total decrease from KJV and other Bibles before 1901, to Bibles who even completely omit certain terms, one can nevertheless see occasionally increases in a minority of terms and translations. The patterns save for one or two terms, are at best erratic, indicating a period of 'fraying' or disintegration of the integrity of translation, but overall in a downright 'dejudification'. Pre-eminently though we have dealt solely with the Bible and only peripherally with the primary Lexicon and people who are proposed to be behind the disturbing changes.

The Bible and the Holocaust

One of the difficulties in research in this area is that most researchers on the Holocaust or Shoah are Historians or political scientists, occasionally sociologists or even psychologists. One the other hand, those who deal with issues of Textual Criticism, Church History, 'transmission' issues are from Theological backgrounds, and the interface between the two is not what it should be. While there are a significant number of Church Historians who have addressed issues affecting the dynamics of the Church (catholic, Protestant and Evangelical) in the Shoah, such as Connolly, Ericksen, Phayer and others showing anything but a unified or benevolent stance during the war years, almost none have directly addressed the transmission of Bible texts and translations during those years, nor what purposeful 'interventions' may have been made to fit National Socialist ideals.

De-Judification of the Scriptures

The process of 'Judenrein', 'Judenfrei' and 'Aryanization' occurred across German and German occupied territory, in which, central to Nazi philosophy there was to a a 'cleansing' or purification of ALL things Jewish, including the segregation and removal of Jewish citizens and citizenry, the removal of Jewish influence in society, politics, medicine, academics and the arts, the removal of all Jewish writings and creative works, and the removal of even the presence and the bloodline. The intrinsic issue was the erasure of a people who in Nazi eyes were a people without a land, and therefore degenerate, who were equated politically with the infusion of Bolshevism, and who at the heart of their beliefs, a people who when eradicated would usher in a 'New Age' of German Renaissance and Nordic superiority. (See Root Race Theory)

Part and parcel of this process of 'de-judification' was the removal of Jews from Public office, Academic and Arts positions, deportations, removal of Civil rights, employment, a blocking of access to the courts, litigation and due process, a dissolution of property rights and hiring rights, geographical restrictions, and outward markings of anyone who was at least 1/4 Jewish.

In the Church, though, a steady 'de-judification' took place also. The predominant forms it took included

1) Preliminary means of 'adjusting' liturgical and worship practices, e.g. Separate communion for Jewish converts, and dismissal of certain portions of the New Testament such as Romans

2. Doctrinal issues: The introduction (or reintroduction) of a 'Neo-Marcionism' , a position based upon the heresies of Marcion who posited that the Old Testament was irrelevant for the Christian and even that the Jews had a different God. [the Nazis especially Goebbels promoted the erasure of the Old Testament in Christian training],

3. The Aryanization of Jesus and the pejoration of the Pauline gospels which they found 'self-effacing' and demoralizing, and the 'ramblings of a introverted rabbi'.

4. The Censure of Sermons and Pulpit Speech


5. The removal of Jews even converts from public worship
6. The oppression and arrests/torture or death of Sympathizers including non-compliant Clergy [catholic and protestant]


7. The burning and bombing of synagogues,torture and arrest of Jewish Clergy,
and outlawing of even home worship.

8. The Establishment of a 'parallel' Lutheran church compatible with Nazi policy and ideology, a state endorsed Church called the 'Deutsche Christen' emanating out of traditional synods, with iron ties to the state through a Federal Reichbishop and office of Church affairs, with separate seminaries, and Nazi controlled churches and appointments. In the Catholic Church concessions were made in several areas and in occupied areas such as in Czechoslavakia, to insist on Nazi approval of appointed Bishops , Pro Nuncios and Apostolic Delegates.

More could be added, but it is notable that while it is occasionally mentioned in the literature, there was a remarkable move to adjust the Scriptures to a state more amenable to the Third Reich. While there are a number of Theologians who advocated National Socialism such as Hirsch, Althaus, and even Jung at times, two who stand out significantly are Gerhard Kittel, and Grundman.

Kittel and his father Rudolf, are responsible for what have become the two most eminent works in Theology over the past century, the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, [the retranslation of the Old Testament, parting from the traditional text] The Hebraica was based upon modern finds and portions of the Samaritan texts which have always been held with caution due to their origin from the false worship system when the 10 tribes went north and temple worship was moved to Samaria, in variations and derivatives. The son, Gerhard after joining his father at Leipzig, became later a Professor at Tubingen, where such 'greats' as Bonhoeffer, Bultmann, and others attended and/or taught, and which made a home for the compromised Church more than any other institution in the Third Reich. Says Max Weinreich in Hitler's Professors, 1947

"Yet he [Gerhard] became the mouthpiece of the most vicious Nazi AntiSemitism sharing with Emmanuel Hirsch of Göttengen the grim distinction of making extermination of the Jews theologically respectable."

Buber shared this view, holding the younger Kittel formidably responsible for the vile nature of the hate crime of changing the Christian mind in a decidedly negative way. Kittel however was responsible for the Lexicon or Word Study book which became the mainstay of Bible study both in Europe and the US in the 20th century, the
Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament and while he almost lost control of his editorship near the end of WWII, because of his Nazi ties, he continued despite arrest by the French and imprisonment to work till his death on the Lexicon. ^Ericksen The reason his editorship is so important is

1. Kittel was responsible for the appointment of several other pro-Nazi, NSDAP members who wrote 39 sections of the Worterbuch, including Grundman, Rad and Bultmann. (Bultmann is not often considered pro-Nazi, but his constant affiliations and allegiances during the time, regardless of several statements, show a close affinity with Reich theologians, and even if he stood completely apart, his school of 'Higher Criticism' aided in the accomplishment of the same goals.)
2. Kittel joined the Nazi Party in 1933
3. Kittel was a foundational member of the influential and Reich endorsed group of scholars , the Reichsinstitut für Geschichte des Neuen Deutschelands or the Reich Institute for the History of the New Germany, which had as its main goal
racial science scholarship for the New German /European Order Hitler hoped for. The institute, according to Weinreich was comprised of 15 solid scholars albeit of a Nazi bent, and was pervasively influential including professors of Literature, Natural Sciences, Philosophy, political science and religion, a veritable 'think tank' of using scholarship to overthrow and influence conventional academic thinking.Kittel was assigned to the History of Religion, to be rewritten for support of the New Germany. (The group was successful due to the endorsement of Streicher)
^{Weinreich 1948}

4.He was affiliated with Walter Frank and Wilhelm Grau, mainstays in the Nazi movement and participated in Grau's Institut zur Erforschung der Judenfrage 1934 the group dealing with religious aspects of the "Jewish Question".

There can really be no doubt, that Kittel was an established, influential Nazi, who participated in more than one group and level of society and academics in the task of 'dejudifying' Germany, and given his long family history of producing a new OT based upon dissensioned and flawed texts found by Tischendorf (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and the Sinaiticus), and the companion word study. Grundman too even more outspoken than Kittel, and responsible for the establishment of Deutsche Christen Seminaries, removed the teaching of Hebrew from theological training, and produced such sinister doctrines still held today that Jesus was truly an Aryan from an Aryan part of Galilee, a product of a forced union between a Roman soldier and the young Miriam. It was mere speculation but has crept wantonly into modern US theological considerations as well. These were two of the men providing interpretations and renderings of Bible words, lending to doctrinal renderings in most modern scholarship and seminary training ACROSS THE BOARD of denominations from Catholic Scholarship all the way to fundamental scholarship!

Even after 60 years, most of Kittel's writings are still in German, although this will probably change shortly if it has not already, but one wonders if it were purposeful, since the revelation of his forthright Nazism and deliberate participation in dejudification efforts would have greatly affected the sales and use of the Lexicon.

The pervasiveness of the work of the Kittels though is overwhelming: the OT Biblia Hebraica is the foundation of every Modern Bible Translation, coupled with the Nestle-Aland Greek, including even the Jewish New Testament. Given that the main thrust of Kittel's academic career centered around the translation of the Stuttgartensia and dejudification, and given the visual (graphic) evidence of dissension of Jewish terms and/or the erratic use of primary Jewish terms such as Jew, Jews, Children of Israel, Daughter of Zion, and the rest mentioned in previous entries, one cannot help but see it as a fruitful area for research to distinguish the exact passages these men interpreted, and motivations and processes of creating a Bible or series of Bibles and Lexicon derivatives including Vine's, Thayers, and most other recent (not Crudens or the old Strongs), which have influenced two generations of believers of all Christian denominations, their training and doctrine.

Kittel did indeed produce the most widely used and now standard Lexicon, but did it carry a 'time bomb' of Nazi ideology clandestinely intertwined in otherwise reasonable scholarship? A little leaven...a little leaven...

________________________________________--
References

1. Ericksen, M. R. The Case of Gerhard Kittel, in Theologians Under the Third Reich
2. Weinreich, M. Hitler's Professors 1946
3. Vos, J. Anti judaism, Antisemitismus im Theologischen Wörtenbuch zum Neuen Testament
4.Rosen, A. In Harrowitz, Tainted Greatness: Antisemitism and Cultural Heroes
By 1952- Harrowitz, Nancy
Published by Temple University Press, 1994
ISBN 1566391539, 9781566391535

.ekbest, more later.

The Holy One of Israel, Except in the TEV

The Expression 'The Holy One of Israel' is well known in Christianity and Messianic Circles in particular, gracing many popular Christian songs but is also seen to take a nosedive in mention in the TEV (Today's English Version or Good News for Modern Man). It is rather remarkable looking just at a visual trend that the erratic pattern occurred after the RSV, in the 50s, and mention became erratic in translations starting with the much acclaimed, but little supported NASV, although unlike many of the other terms we have looked at "Holy One of Israel" appears to make a comeback in consistency of translation after the 80's: what the reason is needs to be explored, but it appears contemporary with the appearance of much modern Christian music which uses the term, although I cannot say that it was causal, or merely corollary.

"The Holy One of Israel" bears a unique distinction in marking the office of Messiah as an anointing for Israel. Messiah is 'set apart' and 'for Israel'. The term 'holy one' is Kodosh, and lines up with its literal meaning of holy: pure, undefiled, unpolluted and set apart. It is an Old Testament usage distinctly as is the entire term, so the long awaited One, the Messiah, or King, was the Undefiled, unpolluted, pure One, and the term is used also of Nazarites, set apart for God. (the root of 'nazarim' also refers to 'branch' hence, the pure branch which comes out of Israel). Israel, named for Jacob, the Prince of God, is of course straight forward, but the term "Holy One of Israel" used in 37 verses including Psalms, prophets and others is particularly Jewish, and should denote the 'jewishness' of the anointing and whom it was for.

The counts for this excerpt are from the search engine for Bible tools on Crosswalk.com across 12 traditional and modern translations, including standard texts such as Douay, KJV, Darby and RSV, and also paraphrases and those deemed 'dynamic equivalent' texts, such as TEV, New Living, and the DE of NIV. [I am applying the concept to the whole translation].

Notice that post Kittel [Biblia Hebraica], the trend for the next three chronological translations, of NASV, New Living and TEV are first, downward by 6, then up 3 then plummeting to only 4 mentions in the TEV. It is again the 'erratic' pattern I have referred to so often, although this term bears a unique distinction: it returns unlike its counterparts to a level of consistency among translations of around 30 or 31 afterwards.

It must be remembered that there is no clear implication that these were 'purposeful' ommissions or overmentions: it is more likely that they came as mentioned before from two influences:
a. the distortion in Kittel's Hebrew and
b. a lessening of strict policies on exact interpretations after WWII and the growing popularity of Biblia Hebraica.

A note;
This is a particularly Old Testament Term and is most often used in Isaiah, referencing the unity of God and the Messiah of Israel. This is why the term is most particularly of interest in the view of what happened to a variety of terms affecting mention of the Jews, or the interpretation of those terms post-Shoah.
__________________________________

One note if one is 'checking' the data in these charts: search engines vary slightly based upon criteria built into the engine, for example, Blueletterbible.com only lists 30 for KJV, although crosswalk search engine lists 31. That is for number of verses containing the term, even if repeated within the verse. Currently, without extensive tests and perfect standardized search engines, it is actually a 'safer' count that raw word count because it is more consistent across search engines, varying only occasionally by one. ekbest, more later, including the statistical tests. If one notes a significant descrepancy, please contact the author, as on occasion we have had a NASV type ne'er do well change a data point here or there, wishing not to be counted of the character of Tyndale and the like.

Messiah or Christ? Is the reason for attrition a mere change of words?

When I first began to look at the data on the words 'Messiah' and 'Christ', I thought it was a New Testament -Old Testament Issue, or perhaps the Messias-Messiah spelling, and that the differences were due largely to the substitution of what modern translators did in substituting 'Christ', the hellenized term for the Hebrew word, Messiah.

That does not bear out though in many instances at all. Also, the mention of 'Messiah' in the Old Testament is not found often: it is mentioned twice in the KJV in Daniel, and as 'Messias' twice in the Gospel of John, while Christ, a greek term is not mentioned in the OT but is of course often in the new. [571 mentions in 532 verses].

The real dynamic in changes in the Modern translations, is the same pattern as in many other terms: not so much an absolute plumb line of a decline in mention , although that is present, but an erratic pattern of mention across translations.

The name 'Christ' traces down to the idea 'Holy One' or consecrated one, and Messias is a reference to Messiah as that one, and in the Old Testament, 'The Holy One of Israel' is a name for Messiah, although there is a shade of an issue in that 'the anointed one' is a description and 'Messiah' is essentially an 'office'.

One doesn't want to split hairs unnecessarily, for both meanings are completely intertwined, with one another, but the Meschiach is the King and deliverer long awaited in Israel. He is also anointed for that purpose but it is another way of expressing an aspect of who He is, and none must be lost.

Why Erratic patterns matter, and not just downward patterns

It is easy to see why a downward pattern either within a translation line (e.g. RSV to NRSV) or among translations is meaningful. I promised to report significant differences and not merely visual/count trends, and I will by next time, but it should be noted that most of the differences mentioned in this column ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT when performing a Student's or Welch's t-test with a Confidence Interval of 95%, and most are significant at 90%, and almost all are significant in a one-tailed test. That is, among the ones which show change. There are several words which held steady in mention, but the further one gets away from a direct term, such as Jew, Jews, the less the change. For example, and we will look at this in detail later, 'the jews' differs significantly, as do total counts of 13 terms mentioned previously, but 'Consolation of Israel' , a term for Messiah differs only for four across time, and 'Holy One of Israel' only for two across time.


It is a pattern of 'overthrow' in nature, politics, language and social bodies, that change and entropy are often first encountered as a chaotic undoing of a pattern or stable trend. That is why even the visible 'erratic' pattern of the lines showing verse counts in later translations, shows a social/linguistic change, which requires close monitoring, and shows in my estimation the devastation particularly of one or two major variables:

1. The introduction by Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort of questionable text families and loose translations without much accountability, and

2. Most importantly, the very tainted, and most likely purposeful deception of the Kittels', Rudolph and Gerhard, retranslation and collation of Old Testament Hebrew, by two men who were not Jewish (a requirement by Scripture for the oracles of God, and lest one should question, there were Messianics involved in the AV 1611 translation), and who Martin Buber, the famed Rabbi and Theologian held responsible for 'making Anti-Semitism theologically acceptable'. The elder Kittel was a Nazi and volkish mysticist, and the younger Kittel a formidable pillar in the Nazi influenced church, the Deutsche Christen, who with Grundman and others also deleted the study of Hebrew in theological training from new theological schools.

1939-Grundman suspends study of Hebrew in theological training because the New Testament is in Greek only.

One cannot say that the Westcott and Hort retranslations were in any way sufficient, but the data for Jewish terms and related terms demonstrates remarkably that it was the Kittel Hebrew and Lexicon which really sent the mention of the Jews and interpretation of Jewish-related words into a tailspin and often a decline. Kittel did not find it necessary, like Goebbels for Christians to even read the Old Testament in the neo-marcionism of the Nazis, an clearly indefensible position.

One very likely reason, which Bible Scholars immersed in ancient texts will have to deal with, is the possible over-represention of Samaritan texts, which were considered by the Jews who stayed under the head of Judah in the division of Israel following Solomon's reign, dissensioned from the start and equated with idolatry. But more than that, it is very likely, that the two men, father and son, with a discernable and outspoken dislike for the Jews and Jewish influence in Christian theology, either purposely or subconsciously had their work affected. Given their other actions in the Deutsche Christen and support of Hitler's 'realignment' of the Church, and theology, it is entirely plausible to believe it to be purposeful. Kittel had a Jewish assistant who aided in the work, who had to flee Germany, although that story has not been fully explored.

The erratic pattern based on Kittel Biblia Hebraica, is alarming enough that for the time, reasonable Christians should run and not walk back to the Ben Chayim Hebrew base. ekbest

NASV Holds Steady on 'Israel' but not on "Children of Israel"

The ASV vs the NASV on "Israel" and "Children of Israel" over time.

When discussing later versions after some time, such as the ASV vs the NASV, one must understand that while they really can be compared because they are based on the same text family and because the tradition holds weight on the original 'interpretations' one also must acknowledge that over time attitudes and conventions and sometimes even skill level and depth of training, or 'specificity ' of training change.

The ASV was the outgrowth of the RV, after a 14 agreement to carry the Revised Version over to the U.S., but it still retained the style of Elizabethan English. By 1952, RSV had taken hold and was preferred by many Protestant Churches, due to what some felt was
adherence to literal-ness to the extent of ignoring idioms and other language issues. (Not referring to 'dynamic equivalents' necessarily). However, one group, in 1944, really did prefer and like the translation because the changes fit their doctrine: Jehovah's Witness. Says Wikipedia:

The ASV was used for many years by the Jehovah's Witnesses. They first began publishing the ASV in 1944 and have continued publishing the translation until the present time. The reasons for their choosing of the ASV were twofold: One reason for adoption of the ASV was due to its usage of "Jehovah" as the Divine Name, which was congruent with their doctrine, and they derived their name from Isaiah 43.10, 12, both of which contain the phrase, "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah." Also, there was a perception that the ASV had improved the translation of some verses in the King James Version, and in other places it reduced the verses that they found to be erroneously translated in the KJV to mere footnotes, removed from the main text altogether. (For more information see: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 'Why a new translation was commissioned,' which gives the group's explanation of the passages of the KJV that they found to be problematic, and their rationales for concluding thus.)
From 1944 to 1963, the Jehovah's Witnesses printed and distributed 884,994 copies of the ASV. The Witnesses' usage of the ASV was supplanted by their current use of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, a translation made by members of their group, and the rights to which are controlled by the Watchtower Society, which is their publishing arm.[citation needed] New World Translation is still freely available to nonmembers from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witnesses later produced partly based upon the ASV, the New World Translation which was more used after 1950.

With regard to the present graph, we can see that the verse count for Israel changed only very slightly with the updated version from 1901 to the NASB in 1971. However, the term, Children of Israel was not found in the later version, but was changed to Sons of Israel The discussion of 'Sons' vs 'Children' has already been discussed in an earlier blog, for several versions went that way, but it is a rather horrible change for while it can be inclusive, it is seldom used that way, and it leaves out half the Israeli race, and makes corporate action a masculine responsibility such as when the 'Children of Israel' sinned together, or went into battle. KJV distinguishes the issues, and uses 'Children of Israel' to refer to national and 'corporate' Israel. More later

KJV Opposed to All Other Averages of Verse Counts on Jewish Terms

For the same 13 terms we have been looking at listed in the last post (Jew, Jews, The 5 graph compares the OVERALL AVERAGES and compares them to the average verse count for the total of all terms of the King James Bible.

As one can see from the chart, by far, the KJV, based upon the Ben Chayim Hebrew and Textus Receptus Greek, has the highest overall average, with counts on terms ranging from 0 to 2565, with a standard deviation of 581.69. For the overall on non King James versions, both pre and post, the mean is 324.115 and a standard deviation of 582.0266 with a range of 0 to 2306. But even if one compares the KJV to other 1901 or before comparisons, while the degree is not so dramatic as post, one sees a mean of pre-war (pre 1901, when the ASV debuted) average of terms of non-KJV translations as higher than post, the pre at an average of 368.3077 and the post Non KJV translations at 302.0192. Statistical comparisons will follow in the next post.

The former comparison showed that the erratic pattern of Jewish mention appears particularly post-Shoah. After the Shoah several things had happened. The most eminent occurrence after 1901, but especially after the Shoah was the replacement in most theological and translation/textual criticism circles of the Standard texts of the Old Testament (the Masoretic or BC), with the Biblia Hebraica and Lexicon, which had been collated off another text family which included a heavy reliance on the Samaritan, which many scholars note the origin of in the move north by the 10 Northern Tribes after the Division of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. While that text is from much later, it still emanates from Samaritan worship, which deviated from the tradition ages old preservation of the traditional text.

The Kittels, Rudolph and Gerhard, were a father and son team, both notable Nazi 'theologians'. Rudolph Kittel carried on much of the translation of the new Hebrew text, with his son completing and editing and working on the accompanying Lexicon. Rudolph was known for his Nazi party ties, firm Anti-Semitism, and interests in Volkish mysticism: his paternal influence carried over to the son, Gerhard, who was held in disdain by the reknown rabbi, Martin Buber. Buber held Kittel responsible for the apologetics of Anti-Semitism, among the Nazi apologists, Kittel did as much as anyone, pervasively to reinterpret standard traditional doctrines and passages of Scriptures in ways which fit Nazi ideology and the other political agendas of the National Socialists. While one could probably make the best argument for Goebbels with his intricate political Linguistics being the eminent force behind a neo-Marcionism and the erasure of Jewish influence in worship and the Scriptures, Kittel and others such as Grundman, worked towards several notable omissions and reinterpretations. Goebbels wanted to see the Old Testament erased from Christian life, arguing as other German theologians of the time that it held no place for the Christian, although that fell in opposition to the words of Christ in the New Testament who admonished his disciples that not one jot nor tittle of the Word would disappear till all was fulfilled. Since their Scriptures at that point were all the Old Testament, and since Revelation offers a curse for the removal of any part of Scripture, it was clearly a political move of prejudice and not a viable exegesis of the Word.

Other passages though were reinterpreted, the effects of which are still seen today even in US Churches who would never dream any of their doctrine had roots in the Reich. For example, one change in standard interpretation was that the Sermon on the mount was not an admonition and teaching for today's Christian, but for the Millennium or possible heaven, for if it were taught as 'real', it would undermine the war effort and morale of the Wehrmacht. Some dispensationist-Baptists teach the same principle today with different reasonings. Another change was in teachings regarding the Virgin birth. Some argued that the more likely tale was that Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier, producing the infant, and that the infant was more likely a prototype of Master Race, with Jesus as an Aryan of the first order, hence his 'power'. In white Aryan churches today there is an insane effort to divorce Jesus from Judaism explaining his Aramaic roots and claiming that since his family lived toward the North in an area of many gentiles, that he was most likely gentile. Poor Son of David, that old 'gentile'! Yet many argue that even in the US today--I have heard it even among individuals in congregations we have been a part of.

Romans was considered a seditious text, in which Paul was an introverted Jew constantly calling for self-degradation (that is how the Nazis considered 'dying to self'), and calls to the 'Jew first' or the Jews as Chosen, first born, or to be the original vine were not to be taught. Several pastors including Zedlacher were imprisoned for teaching Romans 11, including the admonition to 'boast not against the branches' or mercy to the Jews, which contradicted Nazi policy and law.

Back to the initial point though, after the new text of the Kittels was introduced and with the influence of the Deutsche Christen including new theological training which eventually outlawed training in Hebrew, which would have enabled changes to be detected, English translations of the Bible, the 'Modern Bible Translations' such as NIV, TEV, New Living, NRSV, and NASV etc, which all used Kittels Biblia Hebraica, show a rather dramatic change in Jewish mention. On some terms, such as 'children of israel' the term is completely erased and subsitituted with 'sons of israel' or sons.
Some versions on some terms show a radical increase while others using the same Hebrew show a dramatic decrease. The direction or trend is more often toward a lesser mention, both after WWII for all non KJV versions, and this occurs even within versions over time, such as RSV to NRSV changes which show a clear decline in the words Jews, the jews, tribe(s)etc (see post for Sunday June 29,2008) and the same pattern shows true for ASV to NASV.

These are substantial changes even if they are not statistically significant for even one meaningful change challenges inerrancy if nothing else. It is clear though that the first order of business is that KJV appears overall the superior text on these issues, with the second issue being that versions before the Shoah and influence of the Kittels and the DC, are at least more stable than those after, and overall, show a higher representation of Jewish terms. Further, the least successful overall in stability are post-Shoah, non KJV translations, as compared both to the KJV and to th e pre-Kittel/shoah editions of the modern texts, which already were using the dissensioned greek from the Tischendorf based Westcott and Hort collations.

More later, ekbest

Greatest Mean of 13 terms Across Translations is KJV

_______________________________________________________________________

On a verse count, if one averages across thirteen terms including Jew, Jews, The Jews, Zion, Tribe, Tribes, Israel, Children of Israel, Jewry, Jewish, Jewess, Judah, and Daughters of Judah, one gets the represented means and standard deviations. KJV has the highest mean, and total count of all examined terms. Note the WWII marker (dashed line), and the more erratic pattern after, in both means and standard deviations of the total overall count for the thirteen words. Tests of Statistical significance will be posted at a later time.

NOTE: KJV consistently shows a proper representation of the terms, from the Ben Chayim Hebrew and the Textus Receptus Greek. The above chart shows two things though at least by raw verse count: all versions, before and after Kittel and the Shoah, [Biblia Hebraica], include overall less mention of the Jews and Jewish terms.

The data however shows that total mention of these terms before the Shoah and Kittel's established usage as a substitute for the traditional Hebrew text, that all pre-shoah translations, even the ones 'inferior' to the KJV and based upon Westcott and Hort's collations, are 1) more consistent in mention, and 2) more replete in mention. It seems at least on the surface, that even translations off the modern Tischendorf texts were LESS dissensioned than the post-Kittel translations. KJV retains its superiority and ultimate consistency, both compared to the early translations off W &H and traditional other texts such as Douay and Darby, and to later texts. It's greatest superiority is over the 'Paraphrases' such as TEV and New Living. Again, though, it is not a straight line of descending mention, but a erratic pattern with increases and decreases. ekb

Before the Reich and After the Reich: pre and post Kittel

Here's a little Fact of the Day: A comparison of translations before and after the entrance of the Third Reich and World War II. Why is this an interesting comparison? Because it does not just compare the KJV or Textus Receptus vs New Bibles, but it includes Bibles translated off both text families pre war, up to 1901 and from the war and beyond, after Kittel retranslated the Old Testament!!!

Now, during that time, a major effort ensued which attempted to 'de-judify' Christianity completely in a neo-Marcionism. (see shoaheducation.com/marcion.html)
It apparently had an effect on all subsequent translations, because the drop in average mention of ALL Jewish terms observed (11 terms, including Jew, Jews, Jewish, Jewry, Tribe, Jewess, Tribes, Zion, Israel, Children of Israel etc) is seen in a decisive downward trend.

This does not include all possible Jewish terms, but does include most major terms. The pre War Bibles looked at in this short study were Douay, KJV, Darby and ASV,
the war/postwar Bibles were RSV, NRSV, New Living, NASV, TEV, NIV, NKJV, and HOlman.

Now, because there are only two means to deal with and because I used a less complete online t-test, I repeated the same means twice to increase the power of the test, which should be seen only as a pilot measure and not definitive, but using the test that way, the results are statistically significant, though individual term tests of significance are more meaningful.

The results in a tentative analysis are:
P value and statistical significance:
The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:
The mean of Pre War minus Shoah & Later equals 69.0150
95% confidence interval of this difference: From 68.9515 to 69.0785

Intermediate values used in calculations:
t = 13803.0000
df = 1
standard error of difference = 0.005



Review your data:
Group Pre War Shoah & Later
Mean 371.2050 302.1900
SD 0.0071 0.0000
SEM 0.0050 0.0000
N 2 2

Remember this is not an exact measure due to a little 'data gymnastics' but even the raw count shows average # of Jewish terms on total items observed, dropping significantly in Reich-Post Reich Bibles. It took a few years for Kittel's translation to become accepted worldwide and affect later translations of the Hebrew. But Kittel was called by Martin Buber the man who made Anti-Semitism theologically acceptable, and greatly influenced the Deutsche Christen, the Nazi influenced State Church, and later translations both in Europe and the U.S. The change is astounding.

ONE IMPORTANT POINT: Modern Bible Translators for the most part, I believe did NOT deliberately leave out or diminish Jewish terms or mention. What happened most likely was, the 'new' Kittel collation of the Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgartensia, took far more liberties even than the earlier versions of Tischendorf-Westcott and Hort text families had. Until now, this has almost never been assessed, and that means that Kittel or Kittl and the Nazi theologians, were most sinister and clever, 'adjusting' jewish mention and terms, and not always in decline, sometimes the opposite, making the new basis for translation more ERRATIC--often decreasing the terms, sometimes increasing and sometimes little change but in a state of FLUX, undoing the STABILITY of translation patterns, even apart from different text families.

THIS IS A REMARKABLE UNDERSTANDING!!!!

I believe, although it is still conjecture, and the original text families need to be compared by excellent scholars in their fields, that the ERRATIC change is just as critical a concern as a straight out De-Judification: it leads to the same. It is often a pattern of overthrow, that one first throws chaos into a stable process whether it be a family, a government or a bible translation, and then in the atmosphere of uncertainty and chaos, overthrow of an idea , or state or whatever takes place. History provides the clues as to where that overthrow was leading, and the Third Reich was replete with those who meant to overthrow the Church and the Word of God, but the picture was even bigger than that, and actually started around the time the new texts were discovered by Tischendorf.

Enough for now. A little more later. Many blessings.

Two Older Terms: Jewess and Jewry, Across Translations

Two older terms, show a dramatic change in inclusion at all. These terms are 'Jewry' refering all Jewish people, or the Jewish nation indirectly, and 'Jewess' referring to a female Jew. While these words may be called archaic, they are still in usage today, and still immediately understood by all.

Their exclusion and decrease in modern translations is notable.

RSV Shows a Mostly 'downhill' Trend on Jewish Terms

There are two basic ways we have been looking at the data regarding Jewish terms in the Modern Bible Translations. One is to compare Jewish terms across all Bibles or across unlike Bibles. For example we have looked at The verse counts in the KJV vs two popular paraphrases, the TEV and the New Living.

But another way we have used is to look at older versions vs updates of the same modern translation. In today's graph, note that the RSV is compared on many Jewish terms and with only a couple of examples shows a decrease in verses mentioning the Jews, or Jewish related terms between the RSV in 1952, and the NRSV in 1989.

For several weeks I will continue to show patterns and deficits, increases, and erratic changes, and then I will begin to discuss what this means.

One note should be made at the start for the fair minded: it is not good reporting to show only decreases. I hold to the KJV as the inerrant Word, but that does not give me the privilege of ignoring for example increases in the frequency of verse counts of certain words, such as 'jew' between the RSV and NRSV.

One also needs to remember, that for the most part, I do not believe that translators actually sat down and planned strategies for decreasing Jewish mention in most cases. Until this series of studies, most did not even know the trend existed. The real problem is probably in the base Greek and Hebrew between the Textus Receptus/Ben Chayim that KJV, Luther's, Geneva,Spanish and other older Bibles are translated off of, and the Nestle-Aland/Biblia Hebraica greek and Hebrew emanating from Westcott and Hort off the Tischendorf finds. Once the English comparisons are carefully made and studied, that is the next phase of research.

Tribe or Tribes: Consistent but not by Paraphrases

As in all the data presented here, it must be noted that a trend or pattern line may show a difference in # of verses containing the word of interest, in this case the words 'tribe' and 'tribes', but a raw or absolute difference in count does not always indicate a 'statistical significance' and those who work with changes in the Modern Translations may on occasion run across an academic 'sneer' at the failure to run a statistical test of significance on the 'visual' differences.

The best answer to that objection is that

1. When possible, particularly with these comparisons, tests can be run rather easily, although since the underlying texts are different for the KJV, Douay, and Modern translations, there is a bit of confounding, though other comparisons can be made. However, whether or not statistically significant results are eminent, this is one of the rare exceptions, where just a raw count difference does make a difference. Why? Because with the criteria of Inerrancy in the Word of God, even one 'jot or tittle' makes a difference----and many , even dozens or hundreds of differences, are of issue whether or not the power of the statistical test is great enough to show it. It is not in the venue of this column to go over what 'power' means in a statistical test, but what is to be noted, is that even one difference is enough to be taken account of.

While the words Tribe or Tribes are not exclusively used for the Jews in the Scriptures, such as describing the princes of the 'tribes' of Ishmael, for the most part, tribe or tribes are indicators of jewish related terms for which differences are worth noting. In the graph above, it is visually notable that the 'easy' paraphrases including the NIV, show the greatest change in the words, not in a dissension of the term but an over increase above traditional translations.

In the study of Jewish terms over time , keep two things in mind: when and for what texts were the changes occurring, and 2) IS THE CHANGE UPWARD,DOWNWARD, OR ERRATIC.
This small 'study' shows that after the WWII era, with the introduction of the Biblia Hebraica, and other moves of dejudification or a change in attitudes towards the Jews, the pattern becomes ERRATIC, and for some increases, stays the same or decreases. An erratic pattern away from a consistent pattern is just as important in analysis of what is happening in the Modern translations and historical causality, as a change either upward or downward.

More later. ekbest

O Israel!!! in the KJV vs Two Popular Paraphrases: TEV and the New Living

Today's note is not particularly 'hidden' in the data, but for the word "Israel" one of the most dramatic differences is between the received Text, in the KJV, and two very popular and widely used "paraphrases": Today's English Version (akin to Good News for Modern Man) and the New Living, an update from the Living Bible.

One will note in many terms of Jewish origin or description, that the Paraphrases do not fair well in consistent historical mention of Jewish terms. This is because the paraphrases are
1. Based upon the corrupted Nestle-Aland Greek and Stuttgart (Kittl) Hebrew and
2. Because a paraphrase is not a direct translation.

If one reads in the Bible, "Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in me" and then tries to explain it for example to a young child, you might say, 'don't worry about anything, and don't feel bad, believe in Jesus like you believe in God'. Now the second does not suffice God's standard for doctrine or teaching, but is a rough relaying of what the Word of God says, and while it may be understood, cannot be counted for literal scripture.

The passage above in John 14:1, in the KJV, is the correct for doctrine and the inerrant word. However Modern translations particularly paraphrases, over simplify or change even the meaning of a passage for the sake of 'dumbing down' the phrase in what they think will make the passage more understandable. Children however from very young, understand the first as well as the second and the general public does too.

KJV is the high count for the word "Israel" and it can be seen that the two Paraphrases, TEV and NLV both reduce the mention, and the mention is also reduced over time. More later

Best and Oldest? A little 'secret' about the Sinaiticus From those who knew it best

The great and almighty "Best and Oldest" texts as they are touted are the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus. When these texts were 'found' (or promoted) in the latter half of the 1800s, many in Antiquities and Textual Criticism ran to their defense since they were the first almost whole manuscripts (leaving out Revelation,for example). But the scholars from around the time were not as unified in their opinions as the modern Bible publishers would have you believe. Most new translations and paraphrases have notes in their margins which read "Best and Oldest manuscripts read...." and it follows with another translation of the passage. They do not state that many in the time of the 'new' find by Tischendorf, disagreed vehemently with the changes. So intense were the arguments in that day, that scholarly discussions hit the newspapers, as many argued which were true manuscripts and which were not.

The Sinaiticus, from Those Closest to it

The Codex Sinaiticus which Tischendorf 'discovered' was one of those so called 'best and oldest'. The discussion of why they are not can be found in many books by many authors such as Riplinger [1], Gipp[2], and Waite[3], so a detailed discussion is not the purpose here. What needs to be known today by those who have been deceived into thinking that the Sinaiticus is an excellent document, is that it contains so many errors, that it should have been among texts thrown out: it contains misspellings, cross outs etc, which have been pointed out by many Authorized Version advocates.

Here though is a little thought which Mauro[4] has pointed out on why the Sinaiticus with its many errors actually supports the KJV or Received Text: THE CROSSOUTS AND CORRECTIONS WERE ALL IN LINE WITH BRINGING IT INTO LINE WITH THE RECEIVED TEXTS!!!!

Mauro states:

...this much admired Codex bears upon its face the most incontestable proof of its corrupt and defective character.
But more than that, Dr. Scrivener tells us that the evident purpose of the thorough-going revision which he places in the 6th of 7th century was to make the Ms. conform to manuscripts in vogue at that time which were "far nearer to our modern
Textus Receptus."
The evidential value of these numerous attempts at correcting the Sinaitic Codex, and of the plainly discernible purpose of the most important of those attempts is such that by all the sound rules and principles of evidence, this "ancient witness", so far from tending to raise doubts as to the trustworthiness and textual purity of the Received Text, should be regarded as affording strong confirmations thereof.
From these facts therefore we deduce: first that the impurity of the Codex Sinaiticus, in in every part of it, was fully recognized by those best acquainted with it---and that from the very beginning until the time when it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose; and second that the Text recognized in those days as the standard Text, and by which the defective Codex now so highly rated by scholars was corrected, was one that agreed with our Textus Receptus.

_____________________________________
1 Riplinger , G. New Age Bible Versions; AVPublications
2.Gipp, S. An Understandable History of the Bible, DayStar Publishing
3.Waite, D.A. Defending the King James Bible: A Four-fold Superiority; Bible For Today Press.
4.Mauro, Philip Which Version? The Revised Version of Westcott and Hort or the King James Version. Chapter II: The Various Greek Texts:

KJV vs Two 'Paraphrases' on the terms Jews and The Jews

Note the comparison on the two terms between the frequency of occurence in verses in the Received Text, KJV and an example of two popular modern 'paraphrases'. The KJV is based upon the Ben Chayim Hebrew and the Textus Receptus Greek, and these two, the New Living, and update in 1996 of the 1971 Living Bible, and the TEV or Today's English Version (like Good News for Modern Man) are based upon the Biblia Hebraica Hebrew by the Nazi theologian Kittl, and the Nestle-Aland Greek derived from Westcott and Hort's work in the late 1880s. Unlike the RV and RSV and NASV, though the TEV and New Living are 'paraphrases' and not direct translations, even based upon the altered Greek and Hebrew. They often present phrases such as one might use as an explanation to a child, without a direct translation.
Easy English, though (if it is at all) is not 'accurate English', and the two terms, Jews and The Jews, shows again, a dissension in the frequency of direct reference between the standard AV 1611 KJV and the two paraphrases.

Note that there are only 2 differences though not noted on the chart, for the singular, 'jew': more comparisons will follow.
_______________________

A note to readers: the standard for comparison here is not raw count right now (explanation available) but # verses containing the word in a verse retrieval search engine. The reason is so that the count stays consistent across translations and searches but a few verses contain more than one mention of the same word. However, it randomizes out across translations. though eventually, when better search engines are developed for all translations the raw count is more accurate.

The KJV, The NIV, You say Sion, I say Zion (Let's call the whole thing off!)

When I first examined this difference, it appeared that contrary to the other data, NIV actually showed an increase of the verses in which the word 'Zion' appeared. Some words require extra study, because spellings change both over time, or from Hebrew to Greek, for example, Elijah vs Elias. One must be particularly careful also not to dismiss a term as non-represented from for example the Douay Rheims, for which several spellings are different between the DR and the KJV and modern translations.

The Word Zion, though represents a particularly interesting comparison, for at first glance it appears that there is actually an increase, but the complexity of usage enters in changing the terrain.

There are two elements which must be considered to see what is really going on. The raw totals of the Word 'Zion' on a simple verse count would read

King James : 153
NIV : 164

and one would surmise that the mention of the word 'Zion' had actually INCREASED from the Received Text to the New International Version.

Here though is the complexity:

In the King James, the word that NIV renders Zion in the New Testament is actually 'Sion' and so in a verse retrieval with literal terms would not show at all, accounting for the lower count.

The 153 count for the KJV PLUS the 9 count in the NT for 'Sion' renders 162, a slightly lower count, but lower here refers to an accuracy issue, not frequency issue.

The NIV does not use the word 'Sion' at all. So Old or New, "sion" gets a 0 in the NIV.

Before racing to conclusions though, most would argue that the words are interchangeable, and the use of 'Zion' is to reflect a modern issue in language usage. There is however a difference. Using a lexicon from Blueletterbible.org the two renderings are:

Tsiyown

Pronunciation

tsē·yone' (Key)

Part of Speech

proper locative noun


Root Word (Etymology)

the same (regularly) as H6725

TWOT Reference

1910
Outline of Biblical Usage

Zion = "parched place"

1) another name for Jerusalem especially in the prophetic books


although the expanse of the term is found in both

For Sion:

1) the hill on which the higher and more ancient part of Jerusalem was built

a) the southwestern most and highest of the hills on which the city was built

2) often used of the entire city of Jerusalem

3) since Jerusalem because the temple stood there, was called the dwelling place of God

Now it is not a great deal of difference and it is our equivalent in part of 'Anglicization' from the Hebrew to Greek, but it is important in certain renderings as to what specifically is meant.

If we compared the use of 'Sion ' we would find 0 in the NIV and 9 in the KJV. The Hebrew is carried over into the Greek in the NIV as Hebrew rendering. The implications of this must still be considered but a few things can be surmised:

1. The actual total difference here is small if one uses both terms
2. The usage of Sion in KJV is also used of Mt Hermon in Deuteronomy, with another usage of the Hill on which the ancient part of Jerusalem is built.

Regarding Mt. Hermon:



Hermon also is alluded to as a type of Heaven and the snows of Hermon are set as a comparison or similtude for the pure whiteness of Righteousness and glory.

Psa 133:3 As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.Sgs 4:8 Come with me from Lebanon, [my] spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.

The idea of Mt. Hermon in the north vs the Temple mount area has to do also then with a metaphor of the 'lofty heights' and while Sion is also used of Jerusalem the Jews, etc and the 'Holy Hill' or the dwelling place of God, the slightly altered usage appears to have some significance, though Sion is used the same in the NT although the NIV abandons it. Input is welcome on this particular point.
___________________________
Part of the issue is the generality of the Mount, or Jerusalem versus a particular allusion and foreshadowing of eternal life. This may be seen as minuscule to some, but it upholds the translation of the Received Text, and the 1611 scholars, who understood the critical nature of very small differences.

More later.

RSV vs NRSV Declines on most Jewish Terms

While we have yet to look across the board at more significant historical comparisons, a microcosmic comparison of verses comparing common Jewish terms across the board appears between the RSV of 1952 and the NRSV [New Revised Standard Version]shows an almost complete across the board decline of terms such as Jews, The Jews, Israel, Jewess, Tribe, Tribes, Children of Israel, Judah and similar terms. The exception is for the word 'Jew' where the direction is opposite to slightly more mentions.

Some complain and suggest that the statistical significance of the declension has not been tested, but statistical tests are currently yielding some significant differences and other tests that yield little but the complexity increases based upon the way the statistical comparisons are posed. For example, in another comparison of texts before the advent of the 1952 RSV, in other words, texts before WWII and the Shoah, and after the Kittels and early 20th century changes and influence, there were at least two very significant differences on a mere unadjusted Student's t test of p=.001 and .000 at the 99% confidence level on the term 'Children of Israel' with the second probability level yielded from removing the one outlier of NKJV count.
While my book offers both raw data and statistical analysis of counts, one should note that when there are across the terms changes either in increase, decrease or erratic presentation, it still is significant to the Bible reader and scholar, due to the issues of inerrancy, and the trend towards further changes, either toward greater or lesser inclusion or progressively differing translations of certain terms.

A recent example in the last post was given where the changes in ASV to NASV were not tested statistically, but showed a marked change in turning from the translation 'children of israel' to 'sons of israel'. The word in both modern and traditional text families can mean either sons or children, which will surely be the argument of the 'modern versionists'. But the original term 'children' of Israel did indeed refer not only to 'sons' but to all and was important for it denoted occasionally corporate actions such as national sin or repentance. To use only 'sons' cuts out half of Israel, and more than anything else, would render a great error, challenging the inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture. So even one change in that direction, would be a very serious jot or tittle to lose, regardless of the statistical 'power' of the change, for one error would negate inerrancy.

The above chart does not include all the terms, but does show that for each term, save for 'Jew', there is a significant downward turn in the NRSV, in the 37 year gap between the two versions of the RV. So far we have looked in this column only at the RSV-NRSV comparison and the ASV-NASV comparison, but other trends and differences exist.

The most critical question is why, and whether Bible publishers even know. NIV, oddly, a veritable culprit in dissensioning many terms of critical doctrinal natures, actually fares pretty well, and even shows an increase on some terms. But the critical argument, as will be seen in later data, is that the advent of the Westcott and Hort text, and theological dynamics in the Holocaust, changed more than doctrinal words, but appears to have a steady process of 'dejudification' of many terms, and a change towards the erratic and inconsistent uses of others. More later. ekbest

"Jews", "The Jews" decline in mention from 1901 to 1971 in American Standard

Using a verse count, and comparing the ASV, American Standard Version of 1901 compared to the New American Standard Version of 1971, we find a declension in three terms across time:

Jew, "The Jews" and Jews. Note that the last two terms are not mutually exclusive but are used for comparison purposes.

Sons, Daughters, & Children of Israel

KJV FACT OF THE DAY

Did you know that several of the Modern Translations have seditioned the term "Children of Israel"? They change it most often to 'sons of Israel'. Now, some may say this is a minor change, unimportant, but it leaves out a half of the 'children' of Israel! It is endemic in modern Bible translations that certain words are as good as others. The Greek and Hebrew underlying a word like 'children' can indeed on occasion also mean 'sons' but for hundreds of years, the right translation of 'children' was used, to indicate the entire Hebrew nation and line. It is an interesting point in this day and time when liberal interests and modern translators are vying for 'political correctness' and feminism in what they are calling 'inclusive' language which takes gender out of the Bible in an effort to angdrogenized the references to male-female terms in the Bible, that several modern translations are going the opposite way for this term: the term in this case was inclusive, and it was made instead exclusive.

Living, NASV, Good News and NIV all change as many as 585-656 terms to 'sons' instead of children or leave out the references or give another rendering. For example, not even the most eminent, in the NIV, describing the tribes going to Egypt when Joseph reigned, the NIV says

Gen 45:21

So the sons of Israel did this. Joseph gave them carts, as Pharaoh had commanded, and he also gave them provisions for their journey.

and the KJV says

Gen 45:21 And the children of Israel did so: and Joseph gave them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and gave them provision for the way.

So, who went into Egypt, and in other passages like it, who obeyed? Was it only males, or was it the whole of Israel? It was the whole of Israel. Using 'sons' in the many passages instead of children, often make it a PARTIAL OBEDIENCE, or even partial disobedience, which would render an error in the inerrant word. It does make a difference.

Daughters:

The same error occurs for the word 'daughters' which is sometimes rendered 'daughters' in the KJV and traditional texts, and sometimes rendered 'women' or other more generic terms. We will examine this in the next 'fact of the day'.

The Revised Version Drops Over Time

Tidbit of the day: Between 1952 with the introduction of the RSV based upon the RV and the Westcott and Hort texts [7 years post WWII]; and the year 1989 with the 'upgraded(?)' NRSV, the verse count for the word "Jews" dropped 7.1% from 225 to 209, with 16 less mentions. See ya next time.

Constantine Simonides: KJV Fact of the Day

Doctored quote of the day:
"Do you mind if I take that rubbish with me?" Tischendorf

________________________________________
Around the time of Tischendorf, another paleographer was on the scene who at the time was widely known in Bible text and Antiquities circles, but today, is hardly known at all. The man was Constantine Simonides (1805 - 1867).

He was described by a colleague as brooding , dark, sporting a unkempt beard and while academically very active, kept to himself, making his living off the sales of old documents and manuscripts, but never interested in great wealth.

What makes him unique and of interest in the KJV Controversy is that at the time of Tischendorf's 'discovery' after many visits to Mt. Athos, Simonides claimed that the Sinaiticus, one of the three main pillars of modern Bible translations was a forgery, and he should know, as he claimed the deed to have been done by himself.

For the past 130 years, this rumor drifted around odd corners of christendom, mostly among Bible Historians and those in textual criticism but was never given more than a mere mention because it was always followed with a statement to the effect that later the manuscript was found to be legitimate. Recently though, more information about this infamous fellow has come to light giving more credibility to his claim.

"Tischendorf was only the senior of Simonides by 5 years, and in the sicence of Paleography had neither his knowledge nor his experience."--Farrar, 1907 Forgeries

The man who discounted his finds was Henry Bradshaw, a great influence on the future Eugenicist, Karl Pearson. However, another paleographer, Henry Octavius Coxe, detected a forgery of Simonides.

When I first began to read about Simonides the few finds remarked that he was somewhat of a scoundrel, but early books from around that time up to the turn of the century portray him more as an ardent scholar, more interested in authentic texts than forgery. What some called 'forgery' may have been his admitted attempts, which may have been for scholarship sake, or may have been 'repairs' or 'palimpsests', where ancient unreadable texts were inked over or documents which had first one set of writings which were scraped or otherwise erased for a second set. What Simonides' motivations were is unclear, but at least one possibility is that for whatever reason, he did not respect Tischendorf or his 'scholarship' in detecting authentic antiquities, and could have been trying to prove his point. This has not yet been proved, but can be added to speculation.

A few facts about Simonides are essential:

1. He lived on Mt. Athos at the abbeys near and around where the Sinaiticus showed up, right before and during the time Tischendorf was there.

2. He claimed to be there because of a 'guardianship' of his Uncle Benedict, a monk, because his father had passed away, but years later, letters between him and his father were found dated as late as 1862.

3. Issues of forgeries came up involving a student he employed who reported his suspicions named Lycurgurs, who became a scholar in his own right in the Greek church, who reported his concern to the well respected Dindorf, although Dindorf shook off the allegations as unfounded.

4. The charge of forgery was better known at the time than most know: there was a newspaper quarrel regarding the charge of the Sinaiticus and the Uranius forgery between Tischendorf and Lepsius.

5. Simonides had no real reason to lie about the forgery because it hurt his reputation ultimately. He had the skills using old parchments to accurately produce hard to detect forgeries.

6. Simonides died very soon after the allegation in 1867.

Constantine Simonides: Papers Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, ca. 1856-1863


One formidable resource for documents on Simonides:
(other viable resources are books on Paleography, manuscript evidence,
Tischendorf, "Uranius", Dindorf, Lycurgus, and Mt. Athos for direct
and indirect evidence. Two texts on Forgeries of the time particularly
helpful including one by Ferrar listed in quote at the beginning.
"
RLIN ID No.

NYGG01-A18



Creator

Simonides, Constantine, 1820-1867.



Title

Papers relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, probably forged by Constantine Simonides, ca. 1856-1863.


Physical Description
1 box (.25 linear ft.)



Historical/Biographical Note

Constantine Simonides was an exceptionally skillful calligrapher who is alleged to have sold spurious documents (as well as possibly some that were genuine) in England in the 1850s and 1860s. Among his clients were Sir Frederick Madden at the British Museum and Sir Thomas Phillipps. Simonides resided in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he may have acquired or sold some of the manuscripts that he later sold. He was in England between 1853 and 1855 and then in France and Germany. In 1862 Simonides published in English journals his claim to have written the Codex Sinaiticus, which the scholar Constantine von Tischendorf had discovered at Mount Sinai some years earlier and maintained had been be written during the 4th century C.E.


Scope and Contents
Papers relating to Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides’ assertion that he had forged it. Includes manuscript letters dated 1856-1863. Facsimile (?) of manuscript. Letter to A.N.L. Munby from Andreas Mayor at Sothebys regarding the Codex. Includes offprints about Simonides and the manuscript.



Names

Mayor, Andreas. Correspondence.

Munby, A. N. L. (Alan Noel Latimer), 1913-1974. Correspondence.


Subjects

Simonides, Constantine, 1820-1867.

Bible. Greek. Codex sinaiticus. Forgeries.

Forgery of manuscripts.



Location

Grolier Club, 47 East 60th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022-1098.

Text/Archive info from http://www.grolierclub.org/LibraryAMC.Simonides.htm

A Question in the Shadows of the Shoah: Where Are the Jews?

---
Welcome! This is a new blog dedicated to an ongoing study, which is too big for one book but still relatively unexplored. The "King James Controversy" rages on in the wake of Metzger's death and hundreds of modern translations, but the controversy is better called, the "Which Bible" controversy, for it asks the eminent question, "Did God Keep and Preserve His Perfect Word? " ---and if He did, which translation represents the perfect, inerrant, infallible Word, perserved across centuries? Thousands of websites and blogs already deal with this topic including one of my own at kjv.atspace.com, but this blog is focusing on a subsection of the countless studies. The questions to be explored in this blog include

I. What Happened to the transmission of Bible Texts/Translations During the years prior to , during and just after the Shoah?

II. Was there a purposeful 'de-judification of the Scriptures by the Third Reich?

III. Did Nazi Ideology, Philosophy, Myth and 'Mysticism' bear the same roots which sought to change Bible texts to dissension or at least 'unseat' the Jews role in God's sovereignty?

IV. Is there evidence which can be documented that a real dissension exists in modern texts?

V. Who was Kittel and cohorts who were behind the Biblia Hebraica, and what changes were made?

VI. What controversy surrounds the mid 1800's 'Discovery' of the 'new' Greek and Hebrew texts at Mt. Athos and elsewhere, and did the 'renaissance ' of occultic and new age thought share a 'de-judification' process which has influenced not only modern bible translations, but also other more secular viewpoints and philosophies also?

VII. What practical applications can research provide, what implications are there for usage in the Church and in belief in general?

VIII. What doctrines are influenced, and what are the firm teachings regarding New Testament commands of our responsibility and relationship with the Jews who do not believe Yeshua, or Christ is Messiah?

This blog will continue with various thoughts, ideas and findings , although not necessarily in consecutive and sequential order. Guest columnists will be welcome to share views though not anonymously except under extreme conditions. Submissions may be made to shoaheducation@gmail.com, and all copyrights for outside guest columns will remain with the author who submits.


Below are the beginning two studies previously published at thoughtsandnews.blogspot.com (now Seditionact.blogspot.com) and at kjv.atspace.com as well as the online Journal for Church and Genocide: An Evangelical Approach:

PLEASE NOTE: THESE STUDIES HAVE GRAPHS READING 'WORD' COUNT, BUT THE MORE CORRECT TERM IS 'VERSE' COUNT, A SLIGHT COMPROMISE TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY OF ACCURACY OF SEARCH ENGINES USED FOR ONLINE BIBLE TEXTS. WORD COUNTS MAY BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN VERSE COUNTS DUES TO INCLUSION OF A REPEATED WORD IN A SINGLE VERSE, BUT ARE NEVER LOWER. VERSE COUNT WITH VARYING SEARCH ENGINES AFFORDED THE MOST ACCURATE COMPARISON POSSIBLE AND IS NOT SKEWED ACROSS TRANSLATIONS.


NOTE: THOUGHTS AND NEWS NOW LOCATED IN MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN

Pasta Pronta

While the general public may not discern much between Bible translations, fundamental Christians and Jews have been concerned with the issue for some centuries.
The issue is not as easy as which Bible one prefers, for readability, or charts or footnotes, as it is often mistaken, but which Bible in existence today is the real Bible, the one handed down from the Apostles and early Christians in the first century.
Likewise, it is not an exclusively Christian Concern, as the Jews for several thousand years have been the keepers of the Word, and their Torah in the 'Ben Chayim' text [Hebrew text] is the same as our first five books of the Bible or 'Pentateuch', and matches almost exactly the Hebrew in the KJV, translated off the same texts. The question raised here is towards one particular point of difference: are the Jews treated differently in the different translations? The answer is an astounding yes, but before examining the evidence, a little background is necessary.

The Controversy which has been debated for some time even to the point of dividing 'camps' and churches, is whether the King James Bible, or the A.V. 1611 is the same or equivalent to the 'new' Bibles, of which there are now hundreds. At first glance, many think there are no differences, but scholars even on opposite sides would not reasonly agree that there are none.
The history of the transmission of the 'Bible' is complex and sometimes confusing, partly because there is more than one line of transmission, and partly because there are multiple translations off of each.

A Brief History of the Bible(s)

In the first century as Christianity spread via the gospels and the letters of the Apostles, early churches or 'assemblies' [ikklesia] were given copies of the letters, and both churches and individuals made copies and collated the collection for home and church use, although possession of such was outlawed and could result in death or imprisonment. A letter of Clement notes an admonition to study the Word daily which would have implied home use. Most know of the Christian persecutions during the succession of Roman Emperors, but still the Bible managed to survive. The Gospel, traveling to all known parts of the world during that time, survived, although it was corrupted in part in Alexandria where it became mixed with legends, gnostic writings including gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalen and Thomas and other letters not eventually included such as the Shepherd of Hermes and Barnabas.

In 313ad when Constantine became Emperor, due to the influence of his mother who had embraced Christianity, the persecutions stopped towards the Christians, but not toward the Jews who were exiled once again. Christianity became the 'State-favored' mixed with some forms of sun-worship and other pagan practices. Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50 copies of the Bible, which he brought from Alexandria, where the admixtures originated. In the years to come, the Roman Catholic Church, a direct offshoot of the early Constantine efforts collated and approved a canon, or collected books set in early councils, by the criteria that each book must contribute something new to the acceptable text, and that they must have been written by an eyewitness and disciple. Early efforts a translation into Latin were made by Jerome, and Wycliffe was declared heretical for attempting to translate Jerome's Vulgate into English.

In the late 1500s, though, a Catholic monk, albeit a rebellious, self-directed one, named Erasmus, known for his excellence in Greek and Hebrew, began to collate all available pieces of manuscript evidence. He began to note descrepancies between the Vulgate and fragments and portions of a line which had come through the Waldensians in the Swiss Alps and Northern Italy. The true and original writings had indeed been transmitted, without admixture of legends and gnosticism by the Waldensians, a Church which still exists today in Italy from those historical roots. Erasmus then used those and other evidences such as lectionaries, hymnals, Bibles,and Papyrii to collate 5000 pieces of manuscript evidence, which Erasmus collated into what is now called the "Textus Receptus" or the "Received Text". The Ben Chayim Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus became the base for Tyndale's translation into English and also Stephanus', Bezier, and Coverdale. In 1611 after much reluctance by the immoral King James, the Received Text was translated by an Anglican Committee of the finest scholars of the day, although the result was approximately 90% the same as Tyndale's. [slight differences such as agape translated as love in Tyndale vs charity in AV1611 existed]. This translation became the mainstay for Bible translation for the next 500 years: the Spanish Bible, Luther's German Bible, the Geneva Bible and a few others are all from this line.

Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort:
In the latter 1800s, a man named Tischendorf, a collector of antiquities, discovered 3 manuscripts under suspicious circumstances, named the Sinaiticus, the Vaticanus and the Alexandrian manuscripts. While two were missing the Book of Revelation and one was replete with errors, these manuscripts were considered a great find, and the Anglican Church allowed a new translations based upon these 'new' manuscripts headed by two men, Bishops, named Westcott and Hort. HOWEVER: The Greek they translated off of lying heavily on these new finds, accounted for only 20% of the available evidence. The result was the RSV [Revised Standard Version], and later the NASV and all subsequent 'modern' Bibles. While there are several main bodies of texts or 'text families', the KJV Controversy boils down to :

I. The AV1611 Translation based upon the Ben Chayim Hebrew and the Textus Receptus Greek (Byzantine) and the

II. The Westcott and Hort version (RSV) referred to as the Nestle or Nestle-Aland Greek, and the Hebrew for the new versions was off of the Biblia Hebraica, a Hebrew collation by Reinhold and Gerdhard Kittel, a father and son with strong Volkish beliefs, and later Nazi ties.

The Shoah and the Bible

It is odd perhaps at this point to introduce the Holocaust, but the Nazi Regime, growing in philosophical foundations about the time of the new translations and continuing afterward [see note] did have an effect on the modern translations and views of the holiness, inerrancy and completeness or perfection of the Holy Scriptures. Both Hitler and Goebbels, while raised Catholic, had little use for any translation privately: they both believed it was detrimental to the Nazi cause, and Christ was translated into a prototype of the Aryan Superman, while Paul was dismissed as a self-effacing introverted Rabbi who would demoralize the German people. From 1933, Goebbels introduced a new 'Marcionism' in which the Old Testament was dismissed as at the very least unnecessary and at most degenerate for the German Christian and Christians were urged to stay out of it. [See Marcionism and Banner] While most Protestants at the time would have been using the traditional Luther Bible based upon the TR, the teaching of the day led to a political Church called the Deutsche Christen, a mix of Nazi and reinterpreted Christian beliefs, and set the stage for a distinct lessening of the view of the Jews in Christian texts, doctrine and practice.

The Jews in later Bible Translations

While many argue that there are no differences between the KJV and Modern Bibles such as NIV, NASV, Living, or GOOD NEWS, many differences have been pointed to. Writers such as Riplinger, Ruckman, D.A.Waite,Burgon and Gipp, have expounded in length upon the differences and net resources are replete with comparisons which show the new translations pejorate former translations such as blood becoming 'death', virgin becoming maid, or girl, and the divinity of Christ mentioned far less often.

Part of the problem in testing word counts accurately though is that some words are translated off of the same Greek or Hebrew word and others are not because of the differing underlying texts. However, an overall view of the dimunition of mention of the Jews can be seen when looking at the following terms: Jew, Jews, Israel, and Children of Israel. The following Charts show descriptive comparisons of these words across translations:

---

The comparisons above show that there is a significant lessening of the word Jew
in the newer Bibles, a significant lessening of the references to "Jews" and a lessening of the Word "Israel". Further, the chart at the beginning of the article shows a significant lessening of the mention of the "Children of Israel" and inclusive term which has been reduced to the 'sons of Israel' which fails to account for the national flavor of the first standard translation. Statistical tests are difficult because of some conflicting factors and different translation starts, but at face value, one can easily note that for whatever reason or degree, the Jews and their homeland have suffered mention in the new translations.

Conclusion

Why is this discussion significant? Marcionism, old and new was outright declared a heresy by all arms of the Church. It entails a difference of God to the Jew vs the Gentile Christian, and the ancient Marcion posited even a different Jewish God of Wrath vs the Christian God of love. For Marcion, the Old Testament was anathema for the Christian, and his position was quickly dismissed as dangerous and heretical. In WWII Germany, the dismissal of the Old Testament and Jewish influence was to weaken Christianity in a neo-marcionism, and replace it eventually with Nazi philosophy and Volkische mysticism and religion, an effort clearly underway by the higher echelon of the National Socialists, but rarely mentioned directly in public. It is suggested here, that the growing weltanschaunng, or world view in the modern Church of moving again away from a whole Bible for "New Testament Only" Christianity [there are churches which advocate and advertise this] is also influencing the modern translations of the Word of God, already based on a faulty set of texts, and leading once again into an 'acceptable' anti-semitism, along with growing approval of doctrines such as amillenialism, post-millenialism and replacement theology. In all of these, the Jews and their nation are denigrated, lessened, diminished or omitted, allowing the vicarious reign instead of a Christianity which instead of boasting not against the branches, or being grafted into the vine (Rms 11) becomes the vine itself.

Jewish roots are not a difference of opinion in the Word or Way of God. They are our foundation and necessity. The Jews are not simply sons born to a land, they are the Children of Israel in all its fullness and inclusiveness. Further, the very word 'Jew', or 'Judah' or Jews indicates 'Praise': they are a people set apart to the glory and praise of God. Scripture teaches in Psalms that God inhabits the praises of his people, and that though seemingly set aside for a long season, their fullness will be accomplished in time. When we through man's rationale begin to reinterpret and remove references to the Jews and the Land of Israel, we cannot expect an lessening of anti-semitism in the Church but an increase, and we cannot expect to find pro-Israel stands but growing pro-Palestinianism.

The fight for the Word of God in this generation is all-encompassing. Most great works and movements in the socio-political realm [such as the fall of the Iron Curtain] have started in the House of God, with the Word of God central. This volatile world is no place for a corrupted version of the Word of God, influencing as its omission did early last century a generation in Europe who lost all concept of the Divine, replacing occultism, and resulting with no surprise in the genocide of the Jewish people of Europe. The Word has to be kept as it has always been: inerrant, perfect, infallible and in the hearts of Jews and Christians, or the world we enter will be the nightmare which is already prophesied.

Difference in Mention of "Israel in Count

Note: Since this study was first done, at least two slides were 'adjusted' but not by the author, changing data points. The slide for 'Jew' has been corrected. Also though, when the data was first presented, the verse count was compared across search engines available and with Strongs, but within about two months, a later doublecheck yielded slightly different results. Catholic bibles may read higher because they include the Apocrypha without mentioning it, and search engines vary so the 'checking' of a word must always be in quotes or some will include 'Jew' in words like 'Jewel' and provide an overcount. Despite the variation which really should not exist with careful robots, the general comparisons still hold and one needs only to examine the pre-shoah Bible counts with the post shoah to see the prevailing differences. Also note though that these are VERSE COUNTS not raw word counts since not all search engines provide both.

---

NOTE: Unknown to me, the author, the data on the beginning slides/graphs was changed and several data points are incorrect: The correction will be made shortly, but readers may make their own comparisons of word counts using parallel Bibles and amplified online versions--the most accurate KJV count is Blueletterbible.com, but crosswalk.com and bible.com and a few others may be used for cross-reference: the same patterns emerge. I do not know when the slides were 'seditioned' but until corrected, I apologize for a few inaccuracies. One other note: the 'counts' are scriptures containing the words, not raw count: it was the only way to make the count in a timely comparison, but the raw count data is under compilation as well.

Was there a Move to De-Judify Modern Bible Translations and Paraphrases in the Years before, during and after the Shoah?
Where are the Jews in the New Bible Translations?- Pt. I

---

Introduction and Review of Part I
That Hitler and the Third Reich meant to rid Germany and Europe of Jewish influence, culture and even bloodlines, is fairly well known today even in popular culture. The extent and methodology which was used by the Third Reich in eradicating Jewish presence in all facets of German society has fascinated, and horrified modern scholars, who have among other things discovered that the 'Final Solution' or Endlosung extended to the Church as well, using the very words and doctrines of the church, to metamorphosize it into something altogether different than the Body of Christ it was intended to be. In past articles we have already looked at the '
I.morphing' of the German Lutherans into the 'Deutsche Christen',with a redefinition of doctrines and concepts although it was never completed, of

II. The de-judification of the Bible by introducing a Neo-Marcionism in which the Old Testament and Jewish influence in the New Testament such as Romans, and other Pauline Epistles were to be eradicated or redefined, and

III.Within both Catholic and Protestant Churches a cleansing of Jewish membership altogether or at least a lessening of equality of Jewish members even of converts in the practice of liturgy, including in the 'High' Churches of the taking of sacraments such as communion, and

IV. A politicizing of the Church including State sponsorship of Ministries such as nursing, benevolence and pastor pensions, State censorship of sermons, State takeover of former religious education sites and orphanages etc. This occurred both in the DC and in the larger body of German Christians as well as in the minority 'Confessing Church' of Bonhoeffer and Neimoller.

Further, like the rest of the German Reich, there was an intensive Gleichschaltung or 'Coordination' of efforts to infuse Nazi beliefs, control, culture and command at all levels, and the Church was the target of this effort as well. Germany and Europe at the time of the Shoah became a political chessboard for the Reich, the Vatican and the rest of the World, manipulating the placement of loyalists in positions such as pro Nuncios, Bishops, Police, mayors, Priests, Ministers and other Doctrinally and Politically loyal persons to maximize the ease of the 'morphing' of the Church, and carry out other policies of deportation and killing, and meet with as little resistance as possible. As with the Arts and social agencies/law enforcement, they often introduced a few loyalists, changed policies lockstep and promoted from within the Party or sympathizers, without forcing a total and immediate change. [Education differed]

The Holy Bible and the Third Reich

We have discussed previously the gutting of Jewish influence in the scriptures, and on a different website, the treatment of Conversos vs Marranos vs non-converts has been discussed ( See article at www.shoahrose.com/converts.html).
While there were somewhat diverse opinions in theological schools such as at Tubingen among Catholic and Protestant theologians about Reich policies, at most theological schools, the move toward Party members only and loyalty oaths prevailed, especially in Chairmanships and higher academic offices.

During this time, a man named Gerdhard Kittl [or 'Kittel] a Nazi theologian, was continuing the work of his father Rudolph Kittl on the Stuttgart Hebraica, and accompanying texts, which would come to replace the Ben Chayim text, the traditional Hebrew text on which the King James [AV 1611], Spanish Bible, Geneva Bible and Luther's German Bible translations were based. Kittl was the man Martin Buber called the man who 'made Anti-Semitism theologically acceptable', and while most of his writings are not readily available in English, even a cursory reading shows that he had no love of the Jews or their doctrine, or Jewish influence or interpretations of Scriptures. At one point, he had a Jewish scholar working for him in research, although the man was among those who had to flee the country. From a point of faith and belief, apart from the 'rigor' of scholarship, one would have to rightfully question his lack of scriptural office for a task: he collated a corrupted Hebrew text, was not a Jew which both Old and New Testament attest to as a requirement as an 'oracle' of the Word, and the texts of Westcott and Hort held to only 20% of the available manuscript evidence, based largely on the findings of Tischendorf in the late 1800s, which while deified for many years are now falling into serious question due to suggestions of forgery and lower quality of the manuscripts called the Vaticanus, Alexandrian, and Sinaiticus.

While that is somewhat repetitive of what has been written before on the topic in this column, the proposal here, in a preliminary examination, is that the period of 1908 to 1945 saw not only dramatic changes in the Church, but dramatic changes in the Word of God.

Changes in the Translation of Scripture Which Proliferated After 1933-5

1. Versions Proliferated after 1933-5, all but one based upon Kittl's Hebraica and
Nestle Aland Greek, the progeny of Westcott and Hort off Tischendorf's
translations
2. Transliterations, Dynamic Equivalents, and Paraphrases proliferated as opposed to word by word or word for word translations: this was true across text families, where even the newer translations were not word for word after their own modified Hebrew and Greek
3. Many many words were changed that directly affected doctrine. This has been well studied by Riplinger,(1) Waite,(2) Burgon (3) and others. Examples include the changing of references to the 'Blood' of Christ pejorized into a mere 'death'^4-note , or the virgin birth changed to a birth by a 'maid' or unmarried woman, or the deity of Christ denigrated.

References to the Jews Take a Dive: Is this a De-Judification of Scripture?

The Concern here though is not the doctrines which have been examined already, and intensively (see AVpublications.com) but of whether there was either a purposeful denigration of mention of the Jews in the Shoah period, and after, or whether it is a corollary societal change which while some may find a move towards trans-racial language, others may find a move toward a lessening of the place of the Jews in society and History. It is rather inconceivable that the Jews would lose their place in the Bible, given that it is the history of the Jewish people and their Messiah.

To review the data from before: modern translations and paraphrases such as the NASV, the Living Bible, Good News for Modern Man, NIV and others:

1. Mention the word "Israel" less frequently
2. Mention the word "Jew" and "Jews" less frequently
3. Change the expression "Children of Israel" almost entirely to "Sons of Israel"
4. Err either in non-mention or changed mention.

The table below shows the exact figures. While not always in descending order chronologically or count wise, it can be clearly seen that there is a trend to a lesser mention in translations beyond the Textus Receptus. Less mention of Israel, less of the Jews, and less, not more inclusive language regarding the children of Israel.

		>

O Daughter of My People

What is even more interesting is the changes in expressions having to do with the Jews which are more subtle: for example in the following graphs, set against the historical events which affected the change in mention the following expressions show a dramatic change, mostly toward lessening but certainly toward a marked instability of translation after the period in which the Reich affected doctrine, the Church and the approach to Scripture and its interpretation. These terms which change after that point are:

1. Daughter(s) of Zion
2. Daughter of My People [Bat Am]
3. Daughter(s) of Jerusalem

While the changes appear to be statistically significant regarding the line between TR Greek and Nestle Aland and between Hebraica and Ben Chayim Hebrew translations, it should be noted that a quick perusal gives further creedence to the 'de-judification' process as paraphrases are usually more severe in there pejorations and omissions. While some may argue that there is little difference between the phrase "Daughter(s) of Jerusalem" and women of Jerusalem, one can easily see that a daughter is a beloved person, belonging to a family, with a place in the family and a father, whereas 'woman' or 'women' is far more generic and does not carry the same connotation. It promotes a view of a less cohesive Jewish community, and on a broader note, relationship to others and God as Father.



Conclusion and Questions

At this point in the research, what can be clearly stated is that there is a marked lessening of mention of the Jews, and key terms referring to the Jews as a nation, people, or in relationship to God. Where there is not a lessening, there is almost an overemphasis. If one views the enclosed graphs, one can see a decided instability after certain key events: after the influence of the change in German theology to Higher Criticism, after Kittl's Stuttgart Hebraica and negative re-definition of the Jews and their place [he is openly anti-Semitic], after the Deutsche Christen reinterpretations of theology and liturgy, after the Jehovah's Witnesses adoption in 1943 of NASV, after blurring of Church-State lines, with the State in the eminent positioning, and after the incorporation of Darwinism, Social Darwinism, Root Race theory [promoted by Blavatsky who also promoted Theosophical translations/interpretations of the New Testament and non-canonical books] and within 30-40 years of Westcott and Hort's introduction of the New Greek. Since almost all of the above changes were at the hands of authors and instigators who were openly Anti-Semitic, it seems hardly logical that the dramatic and systematic changes in Jewish mention in the New Bible translations would not be at least corollated, and very probably causal.

More work needs to be done in the area including

A. Careful histories of text transmission and interpretations during the Shoah years and where [at what Theological institutes]
B. Statistical tests to compare observed trends against decided patterns
C. Investigations into policy making among translators and Committees regarding the inclusion of Jewish mention.

When these issues are resolved, it is highly likely that one will find the pattern of the gleichschaltung of the De-judification of the Word of God itself, which has lasted into this new century, and has forboding potential.

_________________________________________________________________________
REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES
1. Riplinger, G. New Age Bible Versions Avpublications.com 1993
2. D. A Waite, D. A., Th.D., Ph.D .Defending the King James Bible: A four-fold superiority : texts, translators, technique, theology (Hardcover - Jun 1, 1998)
3. Dean John W. Burgon
Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text reprint 2000
4. Note: While some downplay the importance of such differences such as the 'blood' vs the 'death' of Christ, it is actually a critical point: the difference between a Divine Savior and Redeemer vs a dead martyr. Further, the denigration here is deliberate as the word in Greek in both text families is 'hemos' indicating blood [e.g. hemotology] and not 'death'. All die, but only one shed His blood in atonement for sin.