The Bible Doesn't Say That: 40 Biblical Mistranslations, Misconceptions, and Other Misunderstandings

by Joel M. Hoffman

The Bible Doesn't Say That explores what the Bible meant before it was misinterpreted over the past 2,000 years. Acclaimed translator and biblical scholar Dr. Joel M. Hoffman walks the reader through dozens of mistranslations, misconceptions, and other misunderstandings about the Bible. In forty short, straightforward chapters, he covers morality, life-style, theology, and biblical imagery, *The Bible doesn't call homosexuality a sin, and it doesn't advocate for the one-man-one-woman model of the family that has been dubbed "biblical." *The Bible's famous "beat their swords into plowshares" is matched by the militaristic, "beat your plowshares into swords." *The often-cited New Testament quotation "God so loved the world" is a mistranslation, as are the titles "Son of Man" and "Son of God." *The Ten Commandments don't prohibit killing or coveting. What does the Bible say about violence? About the Rapture? About keeping kosher? About marriage and divorce? Hoffman provides answers to all of these and more, succinctly explaining how so many pivotal biblical answers came to be misunderstood.

Genres: Nonfiction, Religion, History, Spirituality, Faith, Christianity, Audiobook

326 pages, Kindle Edition

First published February 16, 2016

About the author

Known for his "fresh insights and interpretations about religious life in the 21st century," Dr. Joel M. Hoffman presents to churches, synagogues, community groups, and university audiences across the world. He holds a Ph.D. in linguistics and has served on the faculties of Brandeis University and Hebrew Union College.

Dr. Hoffman lives in Westchester, NY.

Reviews

[Helga Cohen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author of this book seeks to clarify misinterpretations of the Bible that he says are products of “ignorance, accident, culture gap, mistranslation, and misinterpretation.” As a professor of theoretical linguistics and who has taught Bible in religious settings at Brandeis University and Hebrew Union College, he is able to tackle subjects in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the New Testamnet such as evolution, Jesus’s death, keeping kosher and homosexuality. With his understanding of Hebrew, he is able to explain how many of the passages in the Bible were incorrectly interpreted from the Hebrew into the Bible as it is written.

In one chapter, he discusses the origin and pronunciation of God’s name. The Hebrew alphabet is introduced, the aleph (a) bet (b). He explains about the four letter name for God (the Tetragrammaton) from the Hebrew vowels-Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey. The misunderstanding of the Hebrew grammar led this to the pronunciation of Yahweh and the German pronunciation of Jehovah. Jewish tradition has circumvented this unpronounceable name by using Adonai. Most observant Jews say Hashem which means “the name”.

This book also discusses the alternate stories about the creation and Noah and many other topics. With this book, one needs an open mind and be receptive. Some of the misconceptions are minor but other misconceptions have led to misunderstandings that even caused conflicts with people of faith.

[Anne Marie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book but it was not for me. It goes against everything I believe. Just the part of John 3:16 was hard for me to read. I will probably will be the only one that feels this way about this book. The bible just means too much to me and when the Holy Spirit is yelling at me while reading this book to put it down then I know it's not a book that God wants me to read. Sorry for the negative review. I did not finish this book.

*I received this book from NetGalley for my honest review.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

I ended up really liking this book - but there were some bumps along the way.

Some of these ideas are much more obvious than others (did Adam and Eve eat an apple?) and some are more obscure (did Moses have horns? What the hell?) Many of these discussions will already be familiar to students of the Bible (such as the "apple", above, and chapter 30's eschatological [end of times] issues). Though they are valuable to remind us where these ideas came from, what was originally intended, and to remind the hordes of people that believe them that they're just not Biblical. (Left Behind is pure made up fancy to garner big bucks for folks like Tim LaHaye and others who want to sell a spectacle).

Contradictions

I feel like he starts off on a bad foot. In an attempt to begin "in the beginning", he starts with a confusing discussion of what "in the beginning" should say - with no resolution. From this chapter it appears that the entire book is going to be a linguistic challenge, and we will only be able to count on his Hebrew and Greek scholarship to know if what he is arguing makes sense.

The next chapter makes a lot more sense - a description of the creation story and describing why it was never intended to be taken literal. This is a decent logical approach, and I’m glad the book ended up being more like this.

The creation story isn’t history, and it was never meant as history. This basic fact would have been obvious to anyone living before the scientific era. After all, right there on the page are two contradictory accounts. Of course they couldn’t both have happened, not in the same sense that we use the word “happened” for things that we witness in our own lives. Why would anyone think they were meant to be historically accurate? The only reason we do so today is that we are obsessed with science.

Chapter 3 on the worldwide flood describes the well-documented fact that Genesis contains multiple narratives and that the flood story is a combination of two stories - suggesting that this maybe shouldn't be read as historical fact.

Chapter 4 - lifespans in early Genesis. I wish the author was better at sourcing his information. But it does makes sense. He suggests the unusually long lifespans in early Genesis were clues from the author(s) that this part of the narrative shouldn't be taken literally. Interesting.

Chapter 5 - contradictory David stories. Maybe they are intended to be lessons and not historically accurate factual accounts.

Chapter 6 (on the contradictory and inaccurate lineages of Jesus) explains something that should be obvious to Bible students; and was for a long part of history, even though many modern fundamentalists reject the idea:

We should remember that it is the text itself that forces an honest reader to move beyond a narrow, literal interpretation of the words.

Chapter 7 indicates that the New Testament writings may have focused more on the roles of the Jews in the death of Jesus - and downplayed the Romans. I haven't heard this suggestion before. Interesting! I wonder if this can be attributed to changes over time as the books were copied.

History and Paradigms

Of course, ancient authors (and readers) had a different paradigm for historicity than do modern authors and readers:

It’s not just that ancient authors didn’t have the resources that modern ones do. The whole notion of science—“just the facts,” as it were—hadn’t been born yet. So even ancient authors who wrote pure history also embellished their accounts.

But, we have to keep in mind:

And for that matter, no one writes without a bias, both because of their own agenda and because of the circumstances of their writing. The historian Martin Cohen teaches that the most important question to ask about any historical document is “Who paid for it?”

This last thing is, of course, true of modern authors, though we tend to forget that when providing our schoolchildren with textbooks.

Wordplay and Mistranslation

Chapter 8 is interesting in that the author suggests that the Hebrew for covet should be translated as take - making it an action rather than a heart issue. I couldn't find anything on this online so I consulted a friend of mine who's a Jewish scholar, and she suggested he might have a point, thought it's probably much more complicated than it merely meaning take instead of covet.

The author goes on to spend some chapters on wordplay in the untranslated language that we miss in translated bibles.

Along these lines, in chapter 14, the author discusses a mistranslation of the words of Jesus, which suggests the popular saying "All who live by the sword will die by the sword." But as he goes on to say, it's really a misquote. If you look at almost any translation - it really says "take up the sword" which means using violence, not living by violence. Jesus' true words are much stronger against violence.

Further chapters clarify more meanings that may have been lost in translation.

And nearly halfway through the book he talks about words and their meanings, and how they've changed. Some of this is good, but some seems superfluous. Do a lot of people need this book to figure out that kings in ancient times weren't just figureheads like today?

And about this time he begins to merely argue meaning and translations of words and phrases. It's okay; it’s kind of interesting. Like talking about copiers of the Bible intently re-interpreting phrases and passages.

Prophecy

He has an interesting thing to say about fulfillment of prophecy in the NT. The word translated "fulfill" is more accurately translated "match". So these passages aren't suggesting fulfilled prophecy - just analogous (or parallel) stories and situations. Which makes a lot more sense to me. How could the New Testament writers suggest that a story completely unrelated to the coming of a Messiah be a prophecy which is fulfilled in the life of Jesus?

Chapter 24 has an interesting discussion on the virgin birth. The author states that Matthew's writings confirm that Jesus was indeed borne of a virgin, but that nowhere in the OT was a virgin birth actually prophesied.

The Bible, It’s Laws, and It’s Teachings

This is the best, though: "…one of the most widespread ways of interpreting the Bible is to take a single account out of context and claim that Bible tells us to emulate the people in the account."

This is what divides Christians today. And indeed, it's the signifier of certain Christian traditions - particularly one I grew up in.

People so ready to define Biblical marriage take note: In a study of the OT laws, Hoffman says, "So we have nonconclusive examples of biblical men who had multiple wives, descriptions of how to behave with additional wives, and at least one regulation requiring multiple wives." (Emphasis mine.) One man + one wife is a false statement.

I like that chapter 34 shows how all the scriptures used to support the prosperity gospel are taken out of context.

The Bible and Current Issues

I love how in chapter 37 he talks about men and women, citing a story (Samson's mother) about a smart, godly woman with a dumb, lazy husband. And how Song of Solomon is about a couple (unmarried, BTW) and their sexual relationship and how they see each other as equals.

And this is fantastic:

"Inequality between men and women in the Old Testament, then, seems to have been like warfare and like slavery: All three were established patterns that society would be better without."

Chapter 39, what the bible says about homosexuality, echoes what other scholarly works have said:

"In short, these three passages combine to create only one clear message: Leviticus frowns on male homosexual sex. The rest—the degree to which it is undesirable, homosexuality more generally, its connection to sin, etc.—is all a matter of interpretation."

And:

"So in the end, the only truly biblical stance on homosexuality is limited to rejecting male homosexual sex with the same vehemence as, for example, clothing made from wool and linen mixtures; and to remaining open-minded about everything else. Any more specific position is an interpretation."

This was some good stuff.

I love this from the conclusion: "One sweeping gap we saw was the disconnect between our scientifically driven society and the pre-science days of the Bible. We as modern readers are like children enchanted with a shiny new toy. Our toy is science, and we can’t stop playing with it, shoving it in where it doesn’t belong, particularly into the pre-scientific Bible. In this sense, dividing the Bible into “scientific” and “unscientific” makes as little sense as doing so for art."

Thanks to NetGalley and St. Martin’s Press for a copy in return for an honest review.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book which had a lot of insight into questions a lot of people - religious and non-religious have.

The name of the book pretty much tells you what it is about. The author's arguments are a combination of logic based and "that's just a bad translation" based.

I'd probably give this 3.5 stars if that were an option on GR, but 4 is fair. I would have appreciated a more frequent use of footnotes, which were rarely used in this book - strange given the type of book this is. Without footnotes directly referencing source material, this sometimes sounded like a "this is my opinion, but I'm presenting it as fact" affair.

In any event, this was a pretty light and easy read that I polished off a chapter or two at a time.

In stead of going on and on about the arguments the author sets forth, I've shared all of the highlights I made while i was reading the Kindle version of this book.

[C. Varn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Joel M. Hoffman is a serious figure in the study of the Hebrew Bible and Christian counterpart and his aim to clarify mistakes from "ignorance, accident, culture gap, mistranslation, and misinterpretation." Hoffman's Judaic focus paired with his knowledge of late classical Greek culture and the Koine language make him an ideal explicator: he has no theological (or atheological) ax to grind. Some discussions are more illuminating than others: he writings on the development of Christian and Talmudian interpretations of the text are fascinating. His knowledge of wordplay and decontextualization cuts against both conservative and liberal readings and bound to make everyone a little uncomfortable, but he doesn't have the village atheist approach of merely debunking or finding contradictions, nor does he deny inconsistencies or cultural oddities when they exist. This is clear when he discusses homosexuality in the Bible:

"So in the end, the only truly biblical stance on homosexuality is limited to rejecting male homosexual sex with the same vehemence as, for example, clothing made from wool and linen mixtures; and to remaining open-minded about everything else. Any more specific position is an interpretation."

The bible doesn't say much about it, what it does say is limited in scope, and it comes from cultural contexts that make other associations as to the seriousness or meaning a little difficult to tell. Hoffman points out over and over again that the bible is a complex set of texts that do have mutually conflicting agendas. The only reason this isn't five stars is that some of the question and the simple responses that begin each chapter are misleading because they lack the nuance of Hoffman's explication.

[Wing Lau · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the longest book review I have ever written since I want to ensure that no one (whether you are a believer or not) would be misled or led astray by the author. The only benefit of reading the book is to train your patience as well as your skill in identifying logical fallacies (there are plenty and easy to spot in this book).

There is a full analysis of one chapter (“Ch. 39 Homosexuality”) and a one line summary for each chapter to be thorough. It took me about 3 weeks to complete the review.

For those who wants the gist of the review.

* The book lacks academic citations or references to other related works. So, it is mainly the author’s personal opinion. A causal reader may not find this relevant but then it should belong to fiction or the tabloid category.

* The author makes a lot of unwarranted claims and commits a lot of logical fallacies.

* The author uses exaggerated words repeatedly (e.g. widespread misconceptions, widely misunderstood, misquotations, etc.) and words alone to demonstrate the inaccuracy of conventional interpretations. No concrete evidence was provided.

* The author’s insistence of using “right” and “wrong” to associate with possible translation variations. Obviously, you know who gets the translation right.

* The author does not disclose his own position regarding controversial matters, instead pretending to be neutral by quoting filler passages left and right and insisting that many conventional interpretations have hidden agenda. Nevertheless, the author’s premise could be found only on the last page of the book that “the Bible needs to be scientific.” ….if that’s the premise, your intention is to destroy the Christian’s faith. I don’t mind you doing that as long as you have valid arguments and clear articulations.

To demonstrate these points quickly.

In Ch 8 The Ten Commandments,

the author suggests that “the Hebrew verb (chamad) does not means ‘covet’ but rather means ‘take’” insisting that “Thou shall not take” is the right translation without any supporting evidence.

When I investigates how the Hebrew word (hmd) is used in the Scriptures, using the Bible Word Study Tool, Logos Software (21 instances were found). I could not find the meaning of “take” in any of the verses. The closest I could find is “take pleasure.” Therefore, what the author puts forth that the last commandant of coveting [taking] should only cover an overt action rather than an internal mental state of coveting is invalid. Basically, the author conjures up evidence to support his arguments.

To be fair, there are a few ok blog-like chapters (e.g. Ch. 10 is about how the meanings of some words have changed over time (i.e. from the time when KJV was written).)

Now, if you are interested in details. Please read on...otherwise, jump to the conclusion section at the end.
------------------------
A complete analysis on Ch. 39 Homosexuality

The author quotes three passages addressing homosexuality directly from the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22 (the law)
Romans 1:26-27 (preaching)
1 Corinthians 6:9 (preaching)

1. The author admits that Leviticus 18:22 calls homosexuality an “abomination” but it doesn’t call it a “sin.”
2. The author claims that “for many people”, there is a huge theological difference between “sin” and undesirable behaviour in general.

After a few diversions stating what other people say about the subject, the author claims “many people” read too much into the statement (i.e. that the homosexual act described only applies to men but not women), the author proceeds to downgrade “an abomination” to “an undesirable behavior in general” without ever explaining why something punishable only by death can now be regarded as only something minor or undesirable.

The only argument comes from his assertion that even though in the Leviticus passage that each declaration of an punishable offence is attached with a noun, the noun is not an exact match up to the behaviour but rather is used in a non-specific way to denounce all the listed behaviours. In this way, a new relationship (“abomination” may actually mean “taboo”) the author needs is established.

If you look up “abomination” using the Logos 10, Bible Word Study tool, out of the 48 occurrences, 47/48 mean abhorrence, horror and 1/48 means bleeding and menstruation. Most passages are related to idolatry…which is #1 on God’s 10 commandments. I don’t see how the word can be made equivalent to taboo. On the contrary, if you read Deuteronomy 22:5, if cross-dressing is considered to be a detestable thing by God…what more could God say about homosexual act.

The author uses a lot of factual filler passages (e.g. stating what the rest of Leviticus describes…other things God detests) in between and along with the actual argument (my rough estimate is 1:3 (filler)).

Instead of using them as context, the filler passages are repurposed to further the author's claim that homosexual sex is like mixing wool and linen because both items are listed in a series in these passages. The author keeps on bringing up “what many people believes” as if everything is a popularity contest. These filler passages obscure the logic and flow of the main argument.

Without any clarifications, the author proceeds to equate mixing wool and linen to homosexual sex and suggests that modern readers would not be bothered by either.

He continues his case by downplaying and switching the question to whether homosexual act is illegal to whether it is like a petty crime or like jaywalking and concludes that homosexual act although it is illegal, it is like jaywalking. So, the act becomes “not okay” and proceeds to accuse Leviticus of not making clear whether homosexual act is an important or only an irritable offence, conveniently forgetting the punishable by death sentence.

The next passage to be tackled is in Romans 1:26-27.

The author pulls the same trick of unspecificity blaming Paul for using a Greek dialect to write the letter so making “the works difficult for us to understand with precision today”, claiming “he[Paul] invented some words, and used other, familiar words in novel ways.”

I am not sure whether the claim applies to the entire Romans or just the 2 verses (whether the case is an invented word or using familiar words in novel ways).

The author uses a small trick of turning an adjective into part of a noun, thus creating a new category to further the argument, speculating that since "unnatural female and male homosexual sex (n.)" exists, there must also exists “*natural female and male homosexual sex (n.)."

*Natural homosexual Relationship
Unnatural homosexual R.
Natural heterosexual R.
Unnatural heterosexual R. (Unknown, a concept not introduced in the current passages.)

(*new)

Let's disregard the adjective word form in the original Greek manuscript and assume the proposition is tenable. We could try applying these 4 categories in actual context.

When we put the contrived category in context (v26-27), the argument might work for v26 because it only mentions natural relations vs. Unnatural (contrary to nature) ones for the females without further elaborations.

However, in v27, after drawing a parallel (ὁμοίως) with the males, there is an elaboration to describe what constitutes these acts,

1. Likewise also the males, abandoning the natural relations with the female. (i.e. Heterosexual is the natural relation.)
2. …males with males committing the shameless deed…(i.e. homosexual act is shameless…thus implicating unnaturalness.)

For the new category to work within the passage context, the verse cannot be understood properly because Paul is comparing and contrasting two categories. For this argument to work, Paul need to argue for 4 categories which he didn’t. Unless readers are familiar with the new categories a priori, they render no meaning per the author's clever twist.

The author deliberately "mistranslates" verses 26-27 according to his agenda by using triple negatives and reversing the cause and effect of the passage.

1. “Paul isn’t telling people not to engage in unnatural sex.”
2. God punishes those who don’t follow Him with unnatural sex.

While the original text clearly states that the cause (people wickedness, sinful humanity induces God’s anger), and the effect (God hands them over to their depraved mind which lead to their sinful/shameful acts.)

Then, the author repeats his earlier faulty distinction from Leviticus between “sinful” and “undesirable“ acts and adds that “Romans 1:26-27 makes a statement about the naturalness of homosexual sex.” The author is dishonest by misleading others intentionally and blatantly.

Finally, the author moves on to tackle 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

The author claims once more than Paul used an invented word (Arsenokoites…translated as sodomites) suggesting that meaning is unclear towards homosexual act.

However, if you check other translations, these two phrases…”nor male prostitutes, nor sodomites.” can be translated “passive homosexual partner, dominant homosexual partners” which make complementary senses.

The word appears twice in the Bible (1 Ti 1:10, 1 Co 6:9) and both times, it refers to homosexuals.

Scholars state the word comes from two roots (from (Arrhen, a male) and
(Koite,
1. a place for laying down, resting, sleeping in a bed, couch
2. the marriage bed of adultery
3. cohabitation, whether lawful or unlawful sexual intercourse))

To me, the meaning is rather straightforward.

Finally, the author determines to cite Biblical examples to support his argument.
1. The love between David and Saul’s son Johnathan…(his argument is that the word soul used in 1 Samuel 18:1, (nefesh in Hebrew) may mean body. If that were the case, wouldn’t God have something to say about the relationship? Think about the Bathsheeba incident.

2. The love between Ruth and Naomi, same word “clung to” is used in Genesis 2:24 (Adam “clung to” Eve)…the word just means “staying close together.” Without the sexual connotation that the author insinuates otherwise.

3. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot (Genesis 19:1)…his argument is that Lot’s offering of his daughters as substitutes is worse than Sodomites’ behavior. “In spite of popular perception, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah does not seem to have originally been about homosexuality.” But the author offers no further explanation.

4. The story of Adam and Eve heterosexual relation is not the only legitimate pattern because the text doesn’t state that we should mimic their sexuality.

Furthermore, a spouse doesn’t have to be of the opposite sex because “the Hebrew description literally means ‘opposite,’ it probably actually means ‘like.’” The author creates a geometrical analogy…a table with two columns and similar items are lined next to each other…thus, the items are opposite to each other and are actually similar. This is like you can call a triangle, a line, if you look at it from the side.

5. From the first part of Genesis 2:18 “it is not good that the man is alone. I will make for him a helper as his counterpart.” The author makes a huge generalisation from this particular statement and reasons that “the human” should not be alone to “people” shouldn’t be alone. “If some people can only find companionship with same-sex partners, this may be the strongest support of homosexuality in the Bible.” Again, the author turns a factual description/situation about Adam into a general description about mankind and then turns that into a prescription for finding a same sex partner. The author would use anything to justify this argument.

Overall, I am appalled that someone with a Ph.D in linguistics or translation (these credentials seem to vary as well) could fall far short in fundamental logical thinking.

Originally, I wanted to give the author the benefit of the doubt that he might be doing some kind of postmodern textual criticism and looking for alternative interpretations to generate his preferred reading of the text. However, after suffering through all the chapters, the author's tactics are borderline ethical and dishonest well beyond typical academic explorations. There is little integrity in his writing.

------------------------
A one-line summary for each chapter.

1. The beginning of Genesis should be translated…”In the beginning - and speaking of beginnings, the Bible is the beginning of God’s way.” (Implying that the book is not literal.)

2. Do not take the creation-in-six-days story literally.

3. There are two versions of the Noah’s ark flood story.

4. Do not take the Genesis ages literally. The book is nonhistorical.

5. There are discrepancies in the David and Goliath story.

6. The genealogy of Jesus written in Matthew and Luke should not be read literally like scientific histories.

7. Jesus was killed by some Jews and some Romans rather than the Jews. (Jesus was killed by the Judeans, Southerners)

8. The Tenth Commandment doesn’t forbid coveting, rather it only describes an overt action rather than an internal mental state. (Commented above.)

9. The Ten Commandments should be translated as “ten things” or “ten words.”

10. Some English word meanings (e.g. so, prevent, suffered, let) have changed since the time when KJV was written.

11. There is wordplay (Rhymes, alliteration) in Greek in John 8:32 (“truth” = alitheia, “set free” = eleutherow) that the English translation missed.

12. When Jesus healed a man with a withered hand on Sabbath…the Greek word used anthropos could refer to a man / people so that the an additional layer of meaning of universality could be understood.

13. Discuss the origin of God’s names (e.g. YHWH, Adonai, Jehovah).

14. When Jesus said in Matt 26:52 “all those who take the sword will perish by the sword,” He was talking to another person who was with him, rather than producing a general moral message to the reader.

15. “Dust and ashes” in Genesis 18:27 should be more closely translated as “Earth and ashes” and the Hebrew words appear in a rhythmic pair, afar and efer.

16. The characters of a shepherd (as in Psalm 23) is misunderstood by modern readers.

17. There is no equivalent English translation of the Hebrew words, levav (heart), and nefresh (Soul). The best translation should include “the internal proceedings of a person’s mind and heart, and the external manifestation of the body.”

18. There are odd creatures described in Bible (e.g. unicorns and dragons). Modern readers need to focus on their ancient impacts and representations.

19. Modern readers might misunderstand the meaning of “kings” in the Biblical context.

20. Mainstream religious traditions take Isaiah 2:4 (i.e. swords and plowshares) out of context and turn it into a pacifist statement.

21. Deut 8:3 as quoted in Matthew 4:4 highlights how the Hebrew word, motza, should be translated to “whatever God says” not “God’s words.” Thus, Matthew repurposed the translation to achieve his goal.

22. Isaiah 40:3, “A voice crying out in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.” should be translated alternatively to “A voice crying out, ’In the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord.’ “ The New Testament authors all misquoted or repurposed the text in Isaiah in order to fit John the Baptist description. (The Hebrew structure indeed fits the author’s description, however, the distinction doesn’t make a huge difference to readers.)

23. When our translations say “fulfills”, it should be read as “matches.” (Which sounds quite innocent until the author uses that word to question the virgin birth. It seems to me that this chapter is crafted and handpicked in order to justify his claim for questioning the virgin birth. Piling up fictitious evidence to make a claim)

24. Isaiah 7:14 (Hebrew: alma) means young woman, not virgin although it is quoted in Matthew and Luke for supporting the virgin birth since “quoting out of context was acceptable and even desirable.” The Septuagint’s ‘parthenos’ (virgin) is a mistranslation.

25. In Exodus 34:35, the Hebrew word, keren, could be translated as ‘a horn’ or ‘ray of light’ from Moses face.

26. The Latin words, malus(adj.) / malum (n.), could mean ‘evil’ or ‘apple-like fruit.” That’s where we get the famous misunderstanding that the forbidden fruit was an apple.

27. The year of “Jubilee” is an error…in Hebrew, the year is called “jovel” year meaning a ram’s horn…Jubil is the Latinized form of the Hebrew word.

28. The literal translation of the greek phrase, “huios tou anthropou” should be “son of the man” not, “Son of Man.”

29. A discussion of what is considered to be kosher in the Bible vs. Judaism.

30. A discussion of “ the Rupture” without any specific conclusions.

31. “The Bible neither condemns nor encourages slavery.”

32. “Biblical marriage is not necessarily monogamous, and in some cases may even have to be polygamous.”

33. A discussion of divorce. The OT doesn’t forbid divorce while the NT positions vary depending on how strict one interprets the relevant text.

34. The Bible does not warrant the Prosperity gospel.

35. Relating violence, peace, and justice in the Bible.

36. A discussion concerning justice.

37. A discussion concerning men and women

38. “Killing is a matter of morality and the blood of the slain pollutes the earth.”

39. Homosexuality is not a sin.

40. A discussion concerning abortion.
-----------------------

Conclusion:
The author reveals his premise on the last page of the book, “there are no miracles in the Bible.” Miracles are by definition extra-scientific. “We have stripped away the accidental and purposeful grime that discolours the Bible’s original message. In so doing, we now see, we are forced to give up miracles. But what we gain is a renewed sense of wonder.”

It is rather painful to go through the book because a reader could empathise with the author and his intention. The author ego is quite puffed up and he keeps on stating that “the Bible get distorted through mistranslation, misunderstanding, and misquotation.” It is rather sad to see that the author couldn’t do any basic inductive reading because the Bible is self referential. He just kept on pushing his own agenda above with no end to his own ignorance.

I was hesitate to read through all the chapters because it is obvious to me that it would be a waste of time. Nevertheless, I would rather suffer it once and report all the fallacies in the book than seeing others being misinformed by this writing.

God bless.

[Dawn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this initially intriguing, however, after reading the text which is written by the author I found that his insistence of continuing to use references to Charles Dicken's, trials, musicians who play Beethoven, and more take away from the book and what he is trying to say. In fact, the comparison is initially okay but to continue only expands the text with unneeded words and makes what he said his purpose in shedding light (my words not his) on the mistranslations, whether on purpose or by mistake, an even bigger problem. So, translate for us, don't throw out names and "logic" if you cannot be logical in the text yourself. I would be interested to know the details and the translations but I don't want, nor do I need the constant sidebar going on.

This book, will not reach people the way it is projected to reach people written this way and in fact, will have people like me believing he likes to read his own writing more than his "purpose". Again, I would be interested in his Hebrew correct translations and if you took out the sidebar I believe this book would be one-third the text of the current content.

This book missed the mark for me. In my opinion it will be the same for many others.

I received this as an ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Should be called "40 Things the Bible Says, but it's more nuanced than that, and you probably shouldn't take that statement at face value". If you believe that the Bible you hold in your hand is the literal word of God, unchangeable, incorruptible, then you simply must read this book and take into account its principles upon every reading of scripture. If you grew up like me, learning the Bible your entire life with the understanding that mistranslations, and nuance of ancient languages often shifted the meaning of scriptures, there won't be much in here that's new. Everything I didn't know didn't change the meaning all that much. Take the shepherd chapter: "Does the Bible teach 'the Lord is my shepherd'? No. Most people think of shepherds as quiet, weak guys who live on the edge of town that look after some sheep. But in biblical times, shepherds were renowned for their strength and bravery. They were often called upon by villages to be defenders against attack." There you go, I summed up the whole chapter. While I didn't know that last part, it doesn't change the meaning of that scripture too much. Same with nearly every other misconception out there.

[Italo Italophiles · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author, a highly respected biblical scholar, describes in this book "40 Biblical Mistranslations, Misconceptions, and other Misunderstandings". Considering the age of the Bible texts, and the complications of translation, and the very foreign cultures that produced the Bible, there are many more than 40 items the author could have addressed in his book. He's picked the ones that come up most often in modern society.

The author also highlights five reasons only linguistic, history and theology scholars should interpret the Bible, not lay persons; these are also the five reasons there are so many mistaken meanings given to biblical passages:

1. Deep ignorance of biblical and Hebrew history, as well as the history of language and the translations of the Bible.

2. Many believe the results of historical accidents and the popular spread of misinterpretations, assuming they are in the Bible.

3. A cultural gap between the people who wrote the Bible and the people reading it today, especially concerning obscure history and language, and the allegorical stories, numerological flourishes, rhetorical tricks, and the poetry of the Bible being taken literally by some modern readers.

4. Meanings obscured by mistranslations and poetic license by translators.

5. Selective quotation and quoting out of context too often used to misrepresent biblical meanings to further a personal agenda, ignoring the many contradictions in the Bible.

Since I've always understood that the Bible is a book of poetry, allegory, philosophy, religious tracts, and some history dressed up with rhetorical flourishes, this book preaches to the choir in my case. He tries to warn people to not tale the Bible literally since it was never intended to be taken literally.

The scholarly author's heart and mind are in the right place, considering how many arguments in the public debate stem from religious misinterpretations, but I suspect his prose is too dense, to the point of gibberish at times, for the average lay reader.

One thought continued to run through my head as I waded through the forty cases: the medieval Church was probably right to ban vernacular translations of the Bible, since the translations have led to such bloody strife based on mistranslations and misinterpretations that continue to this day.

I suspect that the author's attempt to contribute intelligent, reasonable and moderate views into public religious and social debates will only end up in the hands of people open to rational thought and scholarly input, and will not get into the hands of people who cherry-pick from the Bible to support views that are biased and mean. I received a review copy of this book. This is my honest review. For the full and illustrated review please visit my Italophile Book Review site.
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...

[Shyames · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sometimes can be a little bit boring but overall very interesting read.
Deals mainly with mistranslations in the Bible, going back to original Greek and Hebrew texts. Sometimes deals too much with linguistics than with actual misconceptions, but still, a lot of good points and explanations on why the Bible doesn't say what people believe it says. Especially if you take into account many translations available even on the Internet.

[Matt W. · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very interesting read that will require more research into its validity. Having an interest in the various religious beliefs of the world, I have always found the various translations of the Bible to be a bit disconcerting. While I wouldn't say this is a "final word" on the subject sort of book, it does give a great range of ideas and arguments on the various topics presented. I think it's a great starting off point, though I do wish the author would have gone a bit more in-depth with some of the topics. Also, I found the formatting a little odd. This review was written in exchange for an ARC of the book.

[Malin Friess · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hoffman (a Jewish scholar) looks to answer what he see's might be misconceptions or misunderstandings of the Bible. Did the Jews kill Jesus? His answer--No--Some Jews and some Romans. He also looks at what the Bible has to say regarding abortion, homosexuality, slavery, marriage and divorce. His translation and hermeneutics is certainly looser than most evangelical's would confirm..but may be in line with left leaning protestants.
2 stars--Hoffman and I likely differ on our biblical philosophies.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really good book. It goes over 40 different misconceptions about what the Bible says. Going back into the original Hebrew and Greek for the most accurate translations. While I found it fun and interesting, many people would find it scary and blasphemous. As one lady said, "If the original King James was good enough for Jesus. It's good enough for me." lol :)

[CJ Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is a Jewish Jewish Studies professor, so his point of view on New Testament documents is different from the usual Christian theologians who comment on the Bible. It is only 40 errors, but they are very interesting points. Bookseller sites summarize the topics covered. I found it valuable.

[Katherine Coble · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ugh. I hate it when someone has a good idea but cannot express it clearly in writing.

I agree with what he has to say, and many of his points I’ve read before from other scholars of world religions. But this guy cannot write well. He can’t express his ideas clearly and succinctly. He bogs down points with extraneous information as though the point of the book is not to educate readers but to prove to readers how smart he is.

[Vivianne TM · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a bit unsure of what I think of this book so I'm going to list things I liked and disliked to try to untangle my opinions about it.

Liked:

- Studying the Bible as a literary text and analyzing how language and modern biases change out understanding of certain passages.
- Facts about Bible translations, original language and elements of how the biblical text is constructed.
- References of different books of the Bible quoting or referencing other passages.
- Tidbits and facts I didn't know about the Bible text.
- In general I liked the way this book did a text study of the Bible but I think what I had a problem with was the commentary on modern and religious practices (see next list).

Didn't like:

- How some parts of the text asume the reader is stupid. Was it really necessary to have a chapter explaining the difference between medieval kings, modern monarchs and ancient biblical rulers?

- I feel that the way the book was framed as a contrast between religion and the Bible text was unfair. Here I'm going to talk a bit about Judaism since is the topic I know and where I found a couple of erroneous or at least misleading facts.

It bothered me from the start that the author points out discrepancies between what the Bible text says and what Jewish practices are without even mentioning that those practices never claim to be a strict following of the "Old Testament" and that the Talmud is needed for what's written in the Bible to be interpreted into the different Jewish practices.

This was more evident on the chapter about kosher food where the author actually says that the dietary laws are only based in the written law. Please note that I'm not criticizing the author's textual analysis of the Bible but how he omits or misleads about religious practices that have a basis on the biblical text.

After reading the mistake in the chapter about kosher food I took with a grain of salt everything written about Christian traditions and the New Testament as I don't know enough about the topic to spot inaccuracies or incomplete information.

- We can't forget that the Bible isn't just any text. It impacts daily lives of people through religion and culture. Doing a textual analysis is delicate and though I liked the way it was done in the book I didn't like how it tried to contrast it with different religious views since there's no way that the author could explain in the limited space of this book how even one religious tradition views any of the topics broached here. The chapter trying to explain in a few pages the role of women in the Bible and it Judeo-Christian traditions is a great example of this.

Conclusion:

As a book of curious facts and tidbits it has its merit but I think it tried to do too much by bringing religious practices into it and that's where it falls short. I would have prefer it to be just a textual analysis without contrasting it with religion.

[Stephen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book on Roni's recommendation. You can see how far I am behind on my TBR because she read it many months ago.

This is a very good book taking a careful look at what the Bible actually says and some common misreadings of the text. Given the write up, I was prepared to be annoyed by someone from one side of a theological divide pushing an agenda, but in fact the writer is very careful not to push agendas and gives equal time to all careful analysis of the text. His analysis is careful and limited to an actual reading of what the Bible says based on an in depth knowledge of the original languages and context. This is a scholar writing in an accessible way and with no obvious biases, and that makes it a very interesting book.

That is not to say he does not overstate his case at times. His chapters all start with "does the bible say X? No." where X is a well known doctrine or position. If you just read those statements and not the discussion in the chapter, you might be misled into thinking this book is a more radical departure than it is.

For instance "does the Bible say God so loved the world?" This chapter is an interesting discussion of what the original Greek means here, and how the English translation is now a touch misleading in that "so loved" here actually means "lived in this way", rather than "loved so much". That is all fine, but actually I had always understood it this way, at least in part because other languages don't have this problem. The Welsh bible has "Canys felly y carodd Duw y byd ", which is literally, "For thus was the love of God for the World". Felly here means so/thus/such but does not imply extent of the love.

When I read the write up I assumed that the author's disagreement here would be greater. I am glad it was not though, because actually he does draw attention to issues of language drift, and although this example does not change our theology much, if at all, there are other times where some very bad theology has rested on some equally mistaken understanding.

So when the author talks about the rapture and the prosperity gospel, he was speaking to the converted (so to speak). In other places there was new information I had not known. In some places I think he missed a thing or two (for instance in the discussion of unicorns in the Bible, he does not mention Asimov's analysis of why the aurochs could well be meant, based on the fact that the aurochs was only known through side on cave art and thus drawn with one horn). Still the book is limited in space and he cannot mention everything, and his analysis on that point is already very full.

All in all a good and enjoyable read. Not too long. It has forty chapters but they are not long chapters.

[Robert Smith]

This guy needs to get a better editor or at least rewrite most of this book and get rid of the questions/answers at the beginning of every single chapter. This book is patronizing. At the beginning of one chapter the question/answer was "Does the Bible say that the Lord is a shepherd? No." As he proceeded to explain he literally says the Bible says "the Lord is my shepherd" in a metaphorical way. How stupid do I have to be to think that the Bible means "the Lord is my shepherd" literally? He self-refuted himself. He did this so often that it's frustrating and gets confusing. He seems to be more interested in playing games with language rather than being straightforward. I hate word games like this. I don't know who his audience is and it's definitely not me, whom is widely read, and it's definitely not for true Christianity. He made more really bad points than good ones. He even went so far to write things that aren't true. He even took multiple verses out of context, especially Romans & 1 Corinthians regarding homosexuality. Part of the proper context of those two letters Paul was writing about sin, not undesirable behavior, so ultimately the Bible does say homosexuality is a sin because Paul wrote how all people are sinners. Why is it that everyone forgets that Paul also wrote: "Every sin, whatever a person commits, is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body" (1 Corinthians 6:18). He even abominationally suggested that a man after God's own heart, was a homosexual. If King David was a homosexual with Jonathan then God wouldn't have called him a man after His own heart. Ultimately, his failure is not recognizing that the Bible is best related to how the world is and/or was during ancient times. He suggests that because the Bible seems to permit something means it's approved. That is fraudulent. This guy is a liar. I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone because there are better books out there explaining the proper way to read the Bible in a very straightforward way including better explanations about translations of words.

[Abdul Alhazred · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first question prompted by the title is “according to whom”. Among the shelves of religion you are just as likely to find a secular perspective as a religious one, and the religious ones have a religious interpretation of one stripe or another. Hoffman's credentials is in linguistics and he's (as far as I can tell) from a liberal jewish cultural background. This means a lot of of hairsplitting over words and some incredible pretzel logic to put the most tolerant spin on what's fairly obviously not a progressive book written in the second millennium. While discussing the exact wording of the text of the Bible is the bread and butter of the text and what should be most rewarding, all too often it's accompanied by real humdingers of interpretive reach that pays no mind to the historical and cultural context of when these words were written, instead wanting to stress that a modern reader can interpret it in such a way as to make it more palatable to his sensibilities. This is at direct cross purpose to the idea of a critical linguistic analysis in my view, and far more into theological juggling (which is odd given the author doesn't seem to be playing for a denomination as is usually the pitfall here).
In one illustrative attempt to swipe at Christopher Hitchens for attacking the God of the Bible as a murderous tyrant he uses the most contrived interpretation possible to paint Hitchens' problem being that wars are "mentioned" in the Bible (as if it had no bearing to the nature of God, and just described things happening) - this to sell a point about context. Of course the context of Hitchens argument is that it is God that's directly commanding a lion's share of the violence in the book, making the author look incredibly inelegant and fumbling the ball on precisely the point he intended to stress.
While this book was a mixed bag of partly illuminating and entertaining points, the credibility of the material raised is in severe doubt given these frequent jarring attempts to spin and slant the matter discussed.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is an interesting read. There's a lot of information and ideas with real-world implications for society and how people interact with each other, and I'd recommend the book to just about anybody interested in "the Bible" as a text. It provides a tidy, well-exampled introduction to the more academic angles of interpretation and translation.

What holds this book back is how solicitous it is to the widest possible audience. Perhaps worried about potential backlash from certain corners (murderous Christian hardliners?), Hoffman goes out of his way to back up assertions with redundant layers of sometimes-faulty justification, and to smooth out any potential rough edges. He also has the habit of closing each (brief!) chapter with segue to the next, which usually feel overwrought and unnecessary. I get the sense that you could halve the book's word-count without losing any actual information. Finally, Hoffman's reasoning is often weak when he moves away from Biblical textual scholarship into contemporary society. There are any number of moments when he makes sweeping, unsupported assertions about society, or presents an argument in seeming ignorance of the strategies or zerothink that a certain kind of religious reader would use to dodge the topic. If Hoffman wants to avoid contemporary debates, he shouldn't touch on these topics at all; if he wants to address them, he should be more thorough.

Fortunately, while the quirks and the caution can get annoying, they only distract from the content at moments rather than obscuring it outright, and I suspect that the content will be informative, or at least interesting, or at least instigating, to many readers.

[Broderick Wall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the ways the Bible has been misunderstood over millennia of interpretation and translation and hand copying. I loved that Dr Hoffman tried to maintain respect for all traditions of Bible interpretations, even if there were some (prosperity gospel specifically) that he obviously had contempt for.

I also really appreciate the willingness to say that the Bible doesn’t weigh in on many modern issues, or at least not in a meaningful way. It shows great restraint not to try and glean more message from the text than is truly there.

The insistence upon treating the Bible as a piece of art and poetry is also refreshing. Too often the Bible and its stories are taken literally, or examples are held up as virtuous when really these allegories and examples are meant to be lessons. Dr. Hoffman’s book does well to provide evidence of what stories are meant to be taken as literal historical recounting or allegorical teaching helping to cut through more distorted modern traditions.

Fantastic book. The beginning is slightly slow; Dr Hoffman begins with more technical, less hotly debated topics. He insists upon laying the necessary ground work to understand biblical misunderstandings. This sluggish start builds the necessary foundation for a great book, which is why I can’t count it against the text.

My only real complaints is that I borrowed this book from the library! I don’t want to give it back!

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting exploration about how the Bible is understood, used and misused. It is another reminder of the complexity and difficulty of translation and the ease with which mistakes can become accepted understanding with troubling results. Hoffman doesn't decry interpretation and the development of particular religious traditions and approaches to scripture. In this book he is seeking to pare that back and look at just what the Bible on its own might say rather than how different traditions have attempted to address the complexities and potential contradictions of Bible translation.

It did feel, however, almost overly simplistic and pedantic at times. I am sure this was designed to avoid the potentially stuffy and technical debates that might be involved. But I think there could have been a better balance between short quick chapters and a dense academic tome.

But again, Hoffman does a nice job highlight how mistranslations, misconceptions and misunderstandings impact our perception of what the Bible "says" versus what we assume it says. Fundamentalists and likely conservative evangelicals probably wouldn't enjoy it but, if they give it a chance, would find much food for thought.

[Roger McCort · Rating 4 out of 5]

Solid study, usually written in an accessible manner.

I suspect this book will make many people angry. The author does an excellent job of explaining why what the Bible literally says is different from what so many people are TOLD it says. There is little delicacy and zero effort to save your feelings. Which is a good thing! Sometimes you need to just rip off the bandage instead of poking at ineffectively and the discussion of Bible translation and tradition diverting from Biblical reality is definitely one of those times.

I strongly recommend this book for pastors, Sunday school teachers, Bible readers, and people of faith everywhere. I'm sorry that it doesn't say what you thought, but you need to know what it DOES say to really begin to understand all that we don't understand about our holy scriptures.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the "famous" bits of confusion, I'd never heard of. I don't know whether that means Hoffman is overstating how well known that bit is or I am just not well enough versed in the matter.

Some of the bits of confusion are VERY famous. John 3:16 being a proper translation when it was put in the King James Bible, but no longer so good a translation was pretty impressive.

My biggest problem with the "bits of confusion" was when he included things that just had more levels of complexity that most people apply to them. One example was when a translation left out a bit of poetry, and kept the intended meaning. I don't think a passage having multiple layers of meaning and only focusing on one layer is an of error.

[Helen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I "personally" am disappointed. Part of this is my fault, I should have researched the author better before purchasing. I am sure the author has read/researched a great deal in his life to arrive at his beliefs/opinions. I was searching for answers, but instead I felt I was being persuaded to author's view. Though that may not have been intended, or could have been the way I "interpreted" what I read, it seems most books I have read, outside of the Bible, seem to end up being more personal opinion and belief instead of staying neutral and giving only facts and let the reader make up their own mind/choice based on facts. The more I read of today's books seeking facts, the more I seem to run into this problem and finding people playing on words to justify what they feel on a given subject, often to the point where a reader becomes confused.

[Ron Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

The value of this book is that we must take the Bible seriously in studying it, and pastors and teachers MUST know the ancient languages, history of the text, and a thorough understanding of Jewish and Greek culture before applying the Bible to today’s world. A detailed (perhaps at times too detailed) discussion on each topic treated. Whether we agree or disagree, we cannot deny Joel Hoffman has done his homework.

[Armand Human · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 Stars.

Although there's a lot I appreciated about this book, much of it wasn't convincing. I'm glad I took the time to listen to the almost ten hours of information provided by Dr. Hoffman, but I was honestly hoping for so much more.

It should go without saying, don't use this one book as your only source. There are compelling arguments against what Dr. Hoffman argues.

[Christian · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.75 stars - some really fascinating looks into translation - a topic I am deeply passionate about since it so crucially affects our understanding of old (and modern) texts of all stripes. Starts with simple misunderstandings and mistranslations of great interest but little consequence, then moving towards fundamental social issues and what the Bible truly says about them. A worthwhile read

[Caroline Keys · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wish I saved myself the time from reading this hahahah a lot of chapters are pretty unfounded and twist words however the author wants, no matter how untrue, to make the authors point. Other times, he tries to flaunt an interesting chapter title for the most mundane difference of synonyms that he wants to say “makes this untrue!!!!”

[Steve Gigl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting linguistics details and some clarifications, but also a fair amount of poor logic, mostly in the more controversial areas (or, it may be cognitive dissonance on my part, but on several points I believe I'm persuadable so I don't think it's that way for all of them).