Chapter 6: Misquotes and Mistranslations

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Christianity.

"A single word can bend a doctrine—and echo for centuries."

Rome, 386 CE. In the flickering candlelight of his monastic cell, Jerome hunches over a Hebrew scroll, his weathered finger tracing a single word that will torment him for hours: 'almah.

The great scholar has read this prophecy countless times before—in the Greek Septuagint, where it declares that "a virgin (parthenos) shall conceive and bear a son." For three centuries, Christians have treasured this verse from Isaiah as divine confirmation of Jesus's miraculous birth. But now, as Jerome labors to produce a new Latin translation that will return to Hebrew sources rather than relying on Greek intermediaries, he confronts an uncomfortable reality: the Hebrew word doesn't mean "virgin." It means "young woman"—'almah—a term that could refer to a virgin but doesn't necessarily imply virginity.

Jerome sets down his reed pen and rubs his tired eyes. Outside his window, the eternal city hums with the confidence of a newly Christian empire. In churches throughout Rome, priests proclaim the Virgin Birth as fulfilled prophecy, pointing to Isaiah's ancient promise. In theological debates with pagans and Jews, Christian apologists cite this verse as irrefutable proof that Jesus's birth was foretold centuries before it occurred.

Now Jerome holds in his hands evidence that this foundational interpretation rests on a translation choice—'almahbecoming parthenos—made by Jewish scholars in Alexandria three centuries earlier when they rendered Hebrew scripture into Greek for diaspora communities who no longer read the sacred language of their ancestors.

The implications are staggering. If Jerome follows the Hebrew strictly, he undermines a central pillar of Christian apologetics. If he maintains traditional interpretation, he compromises his scholarly integrity and perpetuates what he now knows to be a mistranslation.

After long deliberation, Jerome makes his choice: he writes "virgo"—virgin. The theological and pastoral stakes are simply too high to privilege linguistic precision over ecclesiastical harmony. His decision will shape Catholic doctrine for over a millennium and echo through Protestant translations for centuries beyond that.¹

In that moment of hesitation between Hebrew text and Christian tradition, Jerome embodies the central tension of all biblical translation: the choice between fidelity to ancient languages and loyalty to inherited interpretation. It is a choice that countless translators would face in the centuries to come, and their decisions would prove as consequential for Christian development as the original canonical battles themselves.

Translation as Theological Transformation

The transition from canonical formation to textual transmission introduced a new arena for theological creativity and controversy. While the canonical battles of the fourth and fifth centuries had determined which books would be preserved as Scripture, the equally momentous task remained of making those ancient texts accessible to communities that spoke different languages and inhabited vastly different cultural contexts than the original authors and audiences.

Translation proved to be far more than a technical linguistic exercise—it became another form of theological editing, as scribes, scholars, and church authorities made countless interpretive decisions that would shape Christian understanding for centuries. Every choice about verb tenses, metaphorical language, and conceptual frameworks carried theological implications that often extended far beyond what the translators themselves anticipated.

The Septuagint, produced by Jewish scholars in Alexandria during the third and second centuries BCE, established the precedent for how translation could transform religious tradition. Created to serve Greek-speaking Jewish communities throughout the Mediterranean world, this rendering of Hebrew Scripture into the lingua franca of Hellenistic culture inevitably involved interpretive choices that reflected the theological and cultural concerns of its translators and intended audience.²

When early Christian communities adopted the Septuagint as their primary source for Hebrew Scripture, they inherited not just ancient Jewish texts but also the particular interpretive framework that Alexandrian translators had embedded within their Greek rendering. Timothy Michael Law demonstrates that this adoption had profound consequences: "Early Christianity was built on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible. When we understand this, we realize that Christianity from its very beginning was a religion of translated Scripture."³

The implications were far-reaching. New Testament authors quoted Hebrew prophecies according to their Septuagint form, often in ways that differed significantly from the Hebrew originals. When the Gospel of Matthew cited Isaiah 7:14 to support the Virgin Birth narrative, it followed the Septuagint's parthenos (virgin) rather than the Hebrew 'almah (young woman). This choice, made by Jewish translators centuries before Jesus's birth for reasons entirely unrelated to Christian theology, became a cornerstone of Christian doctrine.

Similar transformative translations occurred throughout the Septuagint corpus. The Hebrew hesed, often translated as "mercy" or "steadfast love," became eleos (mercy) in Greek, subtly shifting emphasis from covenantal faithfulness to divine compassion. Hebrew ruach (spirit/wind/breath) became pneuma (spirit), facilitating later Christian pneumatological development. Even seemingly technical terms carried theological freight: Hebrew qāhāl (assembly) became ekklēsia (church), providing linguistic foundation for Christian ecclesiology.⁴

Jerome's Dilemma and the Politics of Translation

When Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome to produce a new Latin translation in the 380s CE, the project emerged from practical rather than scholarly concerns. The proliferation of competing Latin translations had created confusion and controversy throughout Western Christianity. Some versions differed so significantly that congregations using different texts could barely recognize the same biblical passages. Church leaders needed a standardized Latin Bible that could provide textual stability for liturgy, theology, and law.

Jerome brought unprecedented linguistic qualifications to the task. Unlike most of his contemporaries, he had mastered Hebrew in addition to Greek and Latin, enabling him to consult original sources rather than relying entirely on earlier translations. His initial intention was to correct errors and inconsistencies by returning to Hebrew and Greek originals whenever possible.

Yet Jerome quickly discovered that linguistic precision often conflicted with theological tradition and pastoral concern. The 'almah/parthenos problem exemplified the broader challenge: centuries of Christian interpretation had developed around particular translation choices, and correcting those choices threatened to undermine established doctrine and practice.

Jerome's handling of Greek metanoia illustrates another dimension of the translation challenge. The term, fundamental to New Testament teaching about spiritual transformation, literally means "change of mind" or "reorientation"—suggesting a profound internal shift in perspective and values. But Jerome rendered it as paenitentia, a Latin term that emphasized external acts of sorrow and restitution rather than internal transformation.⁵

This translation choice reflected both linguistic limitations and cultural assumptions. Latin lacked a precise equivalent for the Greek concept of metanoia, forcing Jerome to choose among imperfect alternatives. But his choice of paenitentia also aligned with emerging Western Christian emphasis on sacramental confession and ecclesiastical mediation of forgiveness—theological developments that would have proceeded very differently if the Latin Bible had preserved the more internal, psychological emphasis of the Greek original.

The Institutionalization of Interpretive Choices

The Vulgate's eventual dominance throughout Western Christianity ensured that Jerome's translation decisions became foundational for over a thousand years of theological development. Church councils cited Vulgate readings in doctrinal formulations. Medieval theologians built systematic theology around Latin terminology. Liturgical texts incorporated Vulgate phrasing into prayers and hymns that shaped popular piety.

This institutionalization process transformed contingent translation choices into seemingly eternal doctrinal truth. Bruce Metzger observes that "the Vulgate's influence extended far beyond its function as a translation. It became the theological vocabulary of Western Christianity, shaping not just how Scripture was read but how Christian doctrine was conceived and expressed."⁶

The consolidation of particular translation traditions also involved the active suppression of alternatives. When the Council of Trent (1545-1563) declared the Vulgate "authentic and authoritative" for Catholic theology and practice, it effectively prohibited scholarly reconsideration of Jerome's translation choices. Church authorities recognized that questioning established translations could destabilize doctrinal formulations that had developed around particular Latin readings.

Protestant reformers faced similar tensions when they attempted to return to Hebrew and Greek sources. While committed in principle to sola scriptura and original language study, they often discovered that correcting traditional translation errors would require abandoning theological positions they otherwise wanted to maintain. The King James Version(1611) exemplifies this compromise: its translators possessed superior linguistic resources compared to their predecessors, yet they frequently preserved traditional renderings that they knew to be problematic rather than risk doctrinal controversy.⁷

What Would Have Changed?

Understanding how specific translation choices shaped Christian theology opens space for considering how alternative linguistic decisions might have produced different trajectories for Christian development. These counterfactual scenarios illuminate both the contingency of established doctrine and the profound influence that translators wielded over subsequent generations of believers.

Alternative Approaches to the Virgin Birth

If Jerome and subsequent translators had consistently rendered Isaiah 7:14 according to the Hebrew 'almah (young woman) rather than following the Septuagint's parthenos (virgin), the theological foundation for Marian doctrine would have rested more exclusively on the Gospel narratives themselves rather than on prophetic fulfillment.

Amy-Jill Levine and other Jewish-Christian dialogue scholars argue that accurate translation of 'almah might have reduced anti-Jewish polemics that portrayed Jewish rejection of Christian Messianic claims as willfully blind to their own scriptures.⁸ A Christology less dependent on contested prophetic interpretations might have developed more sophisticated approaches to the relationship between Jewish and Christian reading strategies.

This alternative translation trajectory could also have influenced the development of medieval Marian devotion, possibly producing less emphasis on Mary's perpetual virginity and more focus on her role as faithful disciple and theological interpreter. Protestant-Catholic debates about Marian doctrine might have proceeded along different lines if the primary biblical "proof text" had been acknowledged as a translation choice rather than treated as prophetic revelation.

Internal vs. External Models of Repentance

Had Jerome translated metanoia in ways that preserved its emphasis on internal transformation rather than external penance, Western Christianity might have developed very different approaches to forgiveness, spiritual discipline, and ecclesiastical authority.

John Chrysostom and other Eastern church fathers maintained homiletical traditions that emphasized metanoia as heartfelt conversion involving complete reorientation of priorities and values. Rowan Williams suggests that preserving this emphasis in Latin translation might have prevented the increasing legalization of forgiveness that characterized medieval Western Christianity.⁹

Alternative translation of metanoia might have supported more Protestant-compatible approaches to justification and sanctification centuries before the Reformation, possibly preventing or mitigating the sixteenth-century theological rupture. It might also have encouraged contemplative and mystical traditions that emphasized internal spiritual transformation over external religious observance.

Nuanced Understanding of Postmortem Existence

The systematic conflation of Hebrew Sheol, Greek Hades, and Aramaic Gehenna under the single English term "Hell" obscured crucial distinctions between different concepts of postmortem existence, with far-reaching implications for Christian eschatology.

Hebrew Sheol originally referred to a shadowy underworld where all the dead—righteous and wicked alike—experienced diminished existence. Greek Hades carried similar connotations of a general realm of the dead. Gehenna, by contrast, referenced the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem, where garbage and corpses were burned—a geographical location that Jesus used metaphorically to describe divine judgment.¹⁰

N.T. Wright and other scholars argue that preserving these distinctions in translation would have supported more biblical approaches to resurrection hope while undermining later developments in purgatorial doctrine and eternal punishment theology.¹¹ A Christianity that distinguished clearly between temporary postmortem states and final judgment might have avoided both medieval preoccupations with purgatory and Protestant obsessions with eternal damnation.

The Lucifer Myth and Theological Anthropology

Jerome's rendering of Hebrew hēlēl ben-šāḥar (shining one, son of dawn) as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 created a translation error with enormous consequences for Christian demonology and theological anthropology. The Hebrew text used standard ancient Near Eastern imagery to mock the pretensions of a Babylonian king who claimed divine status but would be humiliated and destroyed.

Later Christian interpreters, unfamiliar with this cultural context, reinterpreted "Lucifer" as the proper name of Satan and read the passage as an account of angelic rebellion rather than royal hubris. This interpretation provided the foundation for elaborate theological speculation about the fall of Satan, the cosmic battle between good and evil, and the nature of human temptation.¹²

Bart Ehrman suggests that accurate translation of this passage might have prevented the development of dualistic theological tendencies that portrayed human existence as a cosmic battleground between divine and demonic forces.¹³ A Christianity less preoccupied with Satan's personal identity and cosmic rebellion might have developed more sophisticated approaches to moral theology and practical ethics.

Scholar Debate: Inevitable Errors or Interpretive Choices?

Contemporary biblical scholars remain divided about how to evaluate the translation decisions that shaped Christian theology. The debate reflects broader disagreements about the relationship between historical accuracy and religious tradition, scholarly responsibility and pastoral concern.

Bart Ehrman emphasizes the unintended consequences of translation choices, arguing that most translators worked in good faith but lacked the linguistic and historical knowledge necessary to avoid anachronistic interpretations. In Ehrman's view, doctrinal developments that depended on mistranslations should be reconsidered in light of improved understanding of ancient languages and cultures. "We must face the fact that some of our most cherished beliefs rest on linguistic foundations that simply cannot bear the weight placed on them."¹⁴

Timothy Michael Law offers a more complex assessment, arguing that early Christian adoption of the Septuagint was not an unfortunate accident but a theologically significant choice that shaped Christianity's essential character. Rather than viewing Septuagint-based interpretations as "errors" to be corrected, Law suggests they should be understood as legitimate developments that reflect early Christian interpretive creativity. "The Septuagint was Scripture for early Christians, and attempting to get 'behind' it to some supposedly more authentic Hebrew original misunderstands how scriptural authority actually functions."¹⁵

Bruce Metzger advocates for a more moderate position that acknowledges both the historical value of understanding ancient texts in their original contexts and the legitimate development of tradition through interpretive processes including translation. Metzger emphasizes that translation always involves interpretation and that perfect linguistic equivalency across languages and cultures is impossible rather than merely difficult.¹⁶

David Bentley Hart, whose recent New Testament translation attempts to preserve more of the strangeness and specificity of ancient Greek, argues that traditional Christian translation has been excessively domesticated, making ancient texts sound more familiar and doctrinally comfortable than they actually are. Hart contends that accurate translation should challenge rather than confirm established theological assumptions.¹⁷

The emerging scholarly consensus recognizes translation as inevitably interpretive while maintaining that improved historical and linguistic knowledge should inform contemporary translation efforts. Most scholars agree that understanding how translation choices shaped doctrinal development is essential for both academic study and contemporary Christian reflection, though they disagree about what practical conclusions should follow from this understanding.

The Continuing Legacy of Ancient Translation Choices

The translation decisions made by figures like Jerome continue to influence contemporary Christianity in ways that most believers never recognize. Modern English Bibles inherit centuries of interpretive choices embedded in earlier translations, creating multiple layers of mediation between contemporary readers and ancient texts.

The Reformation principle of sola scriptura assumed that returning to original languages would provide access to unmediated divine revelation, but Protestant translators quickly discovered that linguistic scholarship often complicated rather than clarified theological questions. Even contemporary translations that employ the most advanced scholarly methods must make countless interpretive choices that inevitably reflect the theological and cultural assumptions of their producers.

Liturgical traditions throughout Christianity preserve translation choices in prayers, hymns, and ceremonial texts that shape popular piety and theological imagination. Catholic and Orthodox communities continue to use liturgical languages that incorporate Jerome's Latin vocabulary and conceptual framework. Protestant denominations that pride themselves on biblical fidelity often maintain hymnic and liturgical traditions that reflect centuries-old translation decisions rather than contemporary scholarly understanding.

Denominational differences often reflect alternative translation traditions and interpretive strategies that developed around particular linguistic choices. Catholic emphasis on sacramental penance, Protestant focus on internal conversion, and Orthodox attention to theosis all reflect, in part, different ways of translating and interpreting key biblical concepts across various cultural and linguistic contexts.

Perhaps most significantly, the history of biblical translation reveals how thoroughly human mediation has shaped what Christians understand as divine revelation. Every translation represents countless decisions about how to render ancient concepts in contemporary languages, and those decisions inevitably reflect the cultural assumptions, theological commitments, and scholarly limitations of particular historical moments.

Understanding this reality doesn't necessarily undermine biblical authority, but it does encourage more humble and historically informed approaches to scriptural interpretation. Recognizing that "what the Bible says" always depends on which translation one consults, based on which manuscripts, using which interpretive principles, can promote more thoughtful engagement with the complex processes through which divine truth gets mediated through human language and culture.

The careful study of translation history also reveals how much theological creativity and development has occurred through the process of making ancient texts accessible to new audiences. Rather than viewing translation as merely technical reproduction of original meanings, this history suggests that translation has been one of the primary mechanisms through which Christian communities have adapted scriptural tradition to changing circumstances while maintaining continuity with ancient sources.

Modern debates about inclusive language, cultural sensitivity, and theological accuracy in biblical translation continue the ancient struggle between linguistic precision and pastoral concern that Jerome faced in his monastic cell sixteen centuries ago. Understanding how previous generations of translators navigated these tensions can inform contemporary efforts to make ancient texts speak meaningfully to new audiences without sacrificing historical integrity or theological depth.

The single Hebrew word that caused Jerome such anguish—'almah—continues to generate scholarly discussion and denominational disagreement today. But its contentious history also demonstrates how human wrestling with divine revelation, mediated through the inevitable challenges of language and culture, has been central to Christian development from its very beginning. The God editors who translated Scripture were not betraying divine truth but participating in the ongoing human task of making that truth accessible across the barriers of time, language, and culture that separate ancient revelation from contemporary faith.

Notes

Jerome's translation struggles are documented in his letters and biblical prologues. See J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 159-165.
For the theological implications of the Septuagint translation project, see Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 45-78.
Law, When God Spoke Greek, 2.
The theological significance of specific Septuagint translation choices is analyzed in Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 195-223.
For Jerome's translation of metanoia and its theological consequences, see Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), 91-108.
Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 75.
The translation politics of the King James Version are explored in David Norton, The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 89-134.
Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2006), 145-167.
Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 236-251.
For the Hebrew background of Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna, see Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 67-89.
N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 175-198.
The development of the Lucifer myth is traced in Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 156-189.
Bart D. Ehrman, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020), 89-112.
Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (New York: HarperOne, 2005), 208.
Law, When God Spoke Greek, 89-118.
Metzger, The Bible in Translation, 165-189.
David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 23-45.