In 2023 the Trinitarian Bible Society released the new Spanish version of the Bible, the RV-SBT. This version is a revision of the Reina-Valera 1909 Spanish Bible (as stated on their website). The revision started in 2009 and we are told that the work was done by an international committee from diverse Spanish-speaking countries. You can read their introduction (in Spanish) at the following link: https://www.reinavalera.online/info/
This new Spanish version was highly anticipated by those that desire textual purity but did not want to use the RVG because they thought it might be bad for them politically. The Trinitarian Bible Society has produced good Bible translations in other languages and the hope was that they would do it again in Spanish. Now that the RV-SBT has been released and is being promoted, we can examine it for ourselves.
The revisors claim that this version is a faithful rendering of the traditional text of the Bible. In their introduction (which is written in Spanish) they state:
This revision of the Bible has been driven by the desire to be as faithful as possible to both the textual philosophy and the Reina y Valera translation method. This means, first of all, maintaining the same textual base that our first translators used, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Receptus Text. Without a doubt, they were aware of alternative readings of these texts, coming mainly from the Septuagint for the Old Testament as well as from other manuscripts for the New Testament; That is to say, they were aware of everything that is now at the basis of so-called contemporary textual criticism.
The claim is made that the new Bible is as faithful as possible to the Hebrew Masoretic and the Received Text, but that they were “aware” of other readings such as from the Septuagint and “other manuscripts.” This no doubt is a reference to the Critical Text. As a Bible-believer, I also am “aware” of these corrupt readings. What we all want to know is if they were faithful to the traditional text of the Bible or did they use these “other manuscripts?”
Unfortunately, it did not take much time to find examples of the RV-STB using corrupt texts in their Bible. Let us begin by looking at one that they try to explain away on their website, 1 Peter 2:2.
1 Peter 2:2 (RV-SBT) desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche espiritual no adulterada, para que por ella crezcáis en la salvación,
1 Peter 2:2 (ESV) Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation
1 Peter 2:2 (NIV) Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation,
1 Peter 2:2 (KJV) As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1 Peter 2:2 (RVG) desead, como niños recién nacidos, la leche no adulterada de la palabra, para que por ella crezcáis;
One of the first verses I checked when examining the RV-SBT was 1 Peter 2:2. Sure enough, it contains the corrupt Critical Text reading into salvation. This same corruption is seen in many English Bibles that follow the Critical Text as well as in other Spanish Bibles. The KJV and RVG omit this reading because they follow the traditional text of the Bible. For a Bible version that is marketed to those who seek textual purity, this seems to be a strange addition. The Trinitarian Bible Society knew this, and so they tried to “head us off at the pass” by writing a whole article on it which can be found on their website. The article (written in Spanish) can be viewed here: https://sociedadbiblicatrinitaria.org/1-pedro-2-2/. In said article, they argue that into salvation is indeed a Critical Text reading, but it was once printed in a Received Text edition in the year 1534. They then make the bold claim that this means that into salvation is a “phrase from the Received Text.” This is news to most of us and should be news even to the Trinitarian Bible Society. If it is indeed a legitimate part of the Received Text, then why did they not include it in their Portuguese Bible that they produce and sell? That version states:
Desejai afetuosamente, como meninos novamente nascidos, o leite racional, não falsificado, para que por ele vades crescendo;
If you do not read Portuguese that is ok, I assure you they did not include the Critical Text reading of into salvation. I did not check every Bible that the TBS has on their website, but I did check their German, French, and Romanian Bibles. These translations also do not use the Critical Text phrase “into salvation.” The point I am making is that the Trinitarian Bible Society is contradicting itself in supporting this corrupt reading in their new Spanish Bible. If it is so worthy of being in the RV-SBT, why did they not put it in their other Bibles? Is it because the Trinitarian Bible Society is changing its convictions and heading towards liberal textual criticism?
The Society goes on to argue in their article that the phrase was found in the original 1569 Spanish Bible translated by Reina and therefore should be included in the RV-SBT. I personally believe that if an error was made in 1569, it should be corrected, not honored. We are talking about the Word of God and textual purity, nostalgia is irrelevant.
Moving on from 1 Peter 2:2 we arrive at another troubling Critical Text reading in Revelation 16:5.
Revelation 16:5 (RV-SBT) Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, el Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas;
Apocalipsis 16:5 (RV1909) Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, el Santo, porque has juzgado estas cosas:
Revelation 16:5 (NIV) Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say: “You are just in these judgments, O Holy One, you who are and who were;
Revelation 16:5 (ESV) And I heard the angel in charge of the waters say, “Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was, for you brought these judgments.
Revelation 16:5 (KJV) And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
Apocalipsis 16:5 (RVG) Y oí al ángel de las aguas, que decía: Justo eres tú, oh Señor, que eres y que eras, y serás, porque has juzgado así.
In this verse we have a distinct difference between the Critical Text and the Received Text. The Received Text does not include “O Holy One.” The Critical Text lacks “and shalt be” and “O Lord”. The RV-SBT copies the RV1909 (of which it is a revision) and combines the two texts creating a hybrid verse of two textual bases. This is unforgivable for a Bible version that claims to be a faithful rendering of the traditional text. The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Portuguese Bible does not make this same error and is faithful to the traditional text. I would like to ask the Society, “what changed in your translation principles?”
Moving on from Revelations 16:5 let’s look at another Critical Text reading in the RV-SBT found in Matthew 24:2.
Mateo 24:2 (RV-SBT) Y, respondiendo, él les dijo: ¿No veis todo esto? De cierto os digo que no será dejada aquí piedra sobre piedra que no sea derribada.
Matthew 24:2 (ESV) But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Matthew 24:2 (NIV) “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
Matthew 24:2 (KJV) And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Mateo 24:2 (RVG) Y Jesús les dijo: ¿No veis todo esto? De cierto os digo: No quedará piedra sobre piedra, que no sea derribada.
In Matthew 24:2, the name of Jesus is found in the Received Text but is omitted in the Critical Text (a common occurrence for the CT). We know that the ESV and NIV follow the Critical Text and omit the name of Jesus but what a surprise to see the RV-SBT do the same! I thought it was faithful to the traditional text of the Bible? The Trinitarian Bible Society Portuguese Bible includes the name of Jesus, why can’t the Spanish? What changed in their translation philosophy?
For sake of time let me quickly mention a few other examples of the RV-SBT departing from the traditional text to follow corrupt variants. In Job 13:13 the RV-SBT follows the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Masoretic by omitting “dejadme” or “let me alone.”
Job 13:13 (RV-SBT) Callad delante de mí y hablaré yo, y que me venga después lo que venga.
Job 13:13 (Septuagint) Be silent, that I may speak, and cease from mine anger, [1]
Job 13:13 (RVG) Callaos, dejadme y hablaré yo, y que venga sobre mí lo que viniere.
Job 13:13 (KJV) Hold your peace, let me alone, that I may speak, And let come on me what will.
In Song of Solomon 2:10 the RV-SBT follows the Septuagint with the variant reading of “friend” instead of “my love”. Not even the ESV makes that mistake! I will once again note that the Portuguese TBS Bible has it right and ask the question, why did they have to change it in the Spanish?
Song of Solomon 2:10 (RV-SBT) Mi amado habló, y me dijo: Levántate, oh amiga mía, hermosa mía, y ven.
Song of Solomon 2:10 (Septuagint) My kinsman answers, and says to me, Rise up, come, my companion, my fair one, my dove.[2]
Song of Solomon 2:10 (KJV) My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
Song of Solomon 2:10 (RVG) Mi amado habló, y me dijo: Levántate, oh amada mía, hermosa mía, y ven.
There are several other examples that could be stated but, for sake of brevity, I will leave the reader with just one more verse comparison. In Daniel 3:25 the RV-SBT calls Jesus “a son of God” instead of “the Son of God”.
Daniel 3:25 (RV-SBT) Respondió él y dijo: He aquí que yo veo cuatro hombres sueltos, que se pasean en medio del fuego, y ningún daño hay en ellos; y el aspecto del cuarto es semejante a un hijo de Dios. (a son of God)
Daniel 3:25 (KJV) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Daniel 3:25 (RVG) Respondió él y dijo: He aquí yo veo cuatro varones sueltos, que se pasean en medio del fuego, y ningún daño hay en ellos; y el parecer del cuarto es semejante al Hijo de Dios. (the Son of God)
Daniel 3:25 (TBS Portuguese Bible) Respondeu, dizendo: Eu, porém, vejo quatro homens soltos, que andam passeando dentro do fogo, sem sofrer nenhum dano; e o aspecto do quarto é semelhante ao Filho de Deus. (the Son of God).
I understand that this is not a manuscript issue but rather a translation philosophy issue. What is strange is that the TBS Portuguese Bible gets it right with “the Son of God” while they change it in the Spanish. I just would like to know why the Trinitarian Bible Society made this decision when they have supported the traditional reading in their other Bibles?
I will conclude this article by stating that I will not be changing from my RVG Spanish Bible to the RV-SBT. This new version is better than a lot of other Spanish Bibles (especially the RV1960), but it still uses the corrupt Critical Text and the Septuagint. For those who are looking for a Spanish Bible that is faithful to the traditional text of Scripture, stick with the RVG.
[1] Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870), Job 13:13.
[2] Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: English Translation (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1870), Cnt 2:10.
コメント