# Politcally Correct Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 1, 2001, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689 "2001-10-01T01:24:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Legolas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Legolas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legolas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/1 "2001-10-01T01:24:41Z")
I was flipping through my Bible (or Old Testiment in Christian terms), I noticed something ironic. In Jeremiah, 3:2, it says > [@](#): > > Like a bandit(b) in the Wilderness. And you defiled the land. The (b) refers to the commentary on the actual translation of the Hebrew, explained on the bottom of the page. The commentary claims that the literal translation of the Hebrew for Bandit, was actually _Arab_. Does this mean that the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) has chosen to make its translations politcally correct? Has it always been like that? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/2 "2001-10-01T03:50:37Z")
What translation are you using? King James, New International, what? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/3 "2001-10-01T04:02:05Z")
My 1952 Revised Standard Version says ‘Arab’ in that verse. As does my 1970 New American Standard. The footnote there says ‘Arab’ refers to a ‘wandering nomad who lies in wait for caravans.’ My 1940 King James says ‘Arabian in the wilderness’. My Douay-Rheims says ‘robber in the wilderness.’ I have something here called the ‘Basic English Bible’ - it says, ‘like an Arabian in the waste land.’ - Rick ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/4 "2001-10-01T05:50:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > **My Douay-Rheims says 'robber in the wilderness.'** I looked in 10 English versions, and all but Douay-Rheims has “Arab” or “Arabian”. The Latin Vulgate has _latro_ there, which means “mercenary” or “bandit”. The Douay-Rheims translation, published in 1609, is based on the Vulgate, not on the original Hebrew. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/5 "2001-10-01T06:14:46Z")
My IDF-issued Koren Bible has it as _Aravi_, which more or less settles it. Very odd. I didn’t know that the word even appeared in the bible, or that it actually existed at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Spiratu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@Spiratu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiratu)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/6 "2001-10-01T21:23:15Z")
My New Revised Standard Version says ‘nomad.’ But, the little glossary in the back says: **Arabia, Arabians** The northwestern part of the large peninsula in southwest Asia; scene of many biblical events. The people of the area _were nomads_. (Emphasis mine) So maybe they changed it, not so much for reasons of political correctness, as because nomad or bandit is much closer to what the author meant to imply by the original Hebrew word - even if the closest literal translation of that word in modern English is Arab. I don’t know if we should go around claiming to understand the prophet’s words better then they did themselves, but this one might be understandable. ---
**Author:** ![Legolas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Legolas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Legolas)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2001, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/7 "2001-10-01T23:04:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*What translation are you using? King James, New International, what? \*\* I am using the Hebrew Tanakh, which is my holy bible, there are no “versions” as in King James (not it Judaisim) It was translated by the Jewish Publication Society ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/8 "2001-10-02T03:42:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I am using the Hebrew Tanakh, which is my holy bible, there are no “versions” as in King James (not it Judaisim) It was translated by the Jewish Publication Society Not quite sure what you mean by this. The Jewish Publication Society Bible is a “version” of the Bible, i.e., a translation of the Jewish Scriptures/Old Testament from the original language (Biblical Hebrew) into English. There is certainly more than one Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible into English. Each such translation is an English-language “version” of the Bible, just like the KJV or New American Standard Bible or the New International Version are all English-language “versions” of the Bible. There are also Jewish translations of the Hebrew Bible into various other languages. There _is_ one difference between the way Jewish “versions” differ among themselves and the way Christian “versions” differ among themselves, which is that different branches of Christianity actually disagree with each other as to what is included in the Bible (and not just over how to render the text into English, or how to interpret the meaning of the text in either the original tongue or in translation). AFAIK, both the JPS translation and the Old Testament portion of the KJV are rendering the same Hebrew texts (Genesis, Exodus, etc.) into English. A Catholic version of the Bible, on the other hand, would add several books to the Jewish Bible/Old Testament, and would add sections to the text of certain other books (e.g., Esther); these added sections are called “Deutero-Canonical” by Catholics, who consider them part of the canon of Scripture, and the “Apocrypha” by Protestants, who don’t consider them to be part of the canon of scripture. Jews would not consider the Deutero-Canonical/Apocryphal books to be part of their Bible. (And of course Jews don’t consider the New Testament, the contents of which all major branches of Christianity agree on, to be part of their Bible either.) ---
**Author:** ![theretsof](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e8c25b/32.png) [@theretsof](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theretsof)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2001, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politcally-correct-bible/84689/9 "2001-10-02T05:24:03Z")
I’m not challenging anyone’s religion here, or calling anyone a Fundamentalist, or claiming that anyone so far said they believe the bible word-for-word. But all the reasons given above (translations, Bricker’s 5 different wordings in 5 different books, MEBuckner’s thoughtful description of some differences between different Judeo-Christian sects) this is the best post i’ve seen in awhile as to why a bible should be seen as a wonderful collection of metaphoric stories, verses and thoughtful insights into a moral society instead of a word-for-word rendition of history. Sorry if I’m hijacking.