Bible Translation Differences Questions & Answers

Uploaded: July 6, 2011 Updated: 05/28//2013

(Q stands for Question and A for Answer)

Q. Why does the Revised Standard Version at Romans 16:7 refers to Androni'cus and
Ju'nias as men of note among the apostles, while the New Revised Standard Version
does not have the word men?

A. There is uncertainty as to whether or not Junia (joo'-ni-a) found in some versions at

Romans 16:7 is a male or female. Some versions use instead the masculine Junias (joo'-
ni-as). Observe the difference:

RSV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men
of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

Word Study Greek-English New Testament (Literal translation): Greet Andronicus and
Junias the relatives of me and co-captives of me, who are prominent in the delegates,
who also before me have become in Christ. (Paul R. McReynolds)

New American Standard Bible, 1995: Greet Andronicus and 1Junias, my kinsmen and my
fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ
before me. 1 Or Junia (fem).

NRSV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are
prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Some sources are inclined to believe Junia was a female:

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible: JuniaIs, doubtless, the name of a female, wife or
sister of Andronicus. This appears from their names being coupled like Priscilla and
Aquila, (Romans 16:3) Tryphena and Tryphosa, (Romans 16:12) perhaps, are sisters, or
are coupled from the alliteration.
The Eerdman's Bible Dictionary: A Jewish Christian in Rome, perhaps a female associate
of Paul (the wife of Andronicus?) with whom the apostle had been imprisoned, Junias
was a Christian before Paul was converted and was accorded a position of stature
among the apostles (Rom. 16:7). (Edited by Allen C. Myers, 1987)

The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible: No evidence exists that such a male name
existed, while the name Junia is supported by at least 250 sources. Commentators
before the 12th cent. believed Paul was speaking of a woman, i.e., the 4th cent. scholar
John Chrysostom who said of her in his commentary on 16:5, Oh, how great is the
devotion of this woman, that she should be counted worthy of the appellation of
apostle! (Hom. Rom. 31 [NPNF 11.555). (Vol. 3, page 474)

Also, in line with this source: The NIV Study Bible; ESV Study Bible; and the Andrews
Study Bible.

Others believe the reference in the text is to a male:

R.C.H. Lenski: This is Junias, a man, not Junia (Julia), a woman, wife or sister of
Andronicus.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers: Junia.Or, possibly, Junias (for Junianus), a
mans name.

Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments: Junia Or, Junias rather, it
being evidently the name of a man, as appears from the apostles terming them both his
kinsmen And saying, that they were of note among the apostles.
Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia: Junia...Junias... A Christian at Rome (most probably a man,
although the accusative form... in Rom 16:7 is ambiguous as to gender) a man of note
among the apostles...

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: [Gk. Iounias, Iounia]; AV JUNIA. One to
whom, with Andronicus, Paul sent greetings at the close of his letter to the Romans
(Rom 16:7). The name may be masculine, Junias, a contraction of Junianus, or feminine
Junia; it is Iounian, the accusative form, that is given. In all probability this is the
masculine, Junias. Paul defines the two as (1) my kinsmen, (2) my fellow-prisoners, (3)
who are of note among the apostles, and (4) have been in Christ before me. (Brackets
theirs)

While others are a bit closer to neutral:

Vincent's Word Studies: The latter name may be either masculine or feminine. If the
latter, the person was probably the wife of Andronicus. If the former, the name is to be
rendered Junias, as Rev[ised Version of the New Testament].
The New Harper's Bible Dictionary: Junia (A.V. Rom. 16:7, R.S.V., A.S.V. Junias and
margin Junia), a Hebrew woman or man who was a follower of Christ before Paul was
and a fellow prisoner of Paul's at Rome. If the name is feminine and not a contraction of
the masculine Junianus the lady was probably the wife of Andronicus. (Madeleine S.
Miller & J. Lane Miller, 1973)
Word Pictures on the New Testament: The second name [Junias] can be either masculine
or feminine. (A.T. Robertson, Vol. IV, page 427) See also: The Expositors Greek
Testament, W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. 2, page 719; New Testament for English Readers
(Henry Alford, Vol. 2, page 970.)

Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament: Junias, or Junia. It is impossible to

decide which form of the latter name is correct; if the feminine form (Junia) be
accepted, then the wife or sister of Andronicus is meant. But the description is
supposed by many commentators to favor the reference to a man.

Various reference works parse the noun as masculine, some as feminine, and even
others as both. Overall, there appears to be a greater number of references in favor of
Junia as a female, than there is for Junias as a male. The Source New Testament (by Dr.
Ann Nyland) states: The female name Junia occurs more than 250 times in inscriptions
found in Rome alone, whereas the name Junias has not been found anywhere. Origin
(185-253) the earliest commentator on Romans 16:7, referred to Junia as female. Jerome
(c. 340-420) did likewise. [] The earliest suggestion that Junia was a man is from the
13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) referred to Andronicus and Junia as
honorable men. This same work adds: A woman being noted among the apostles has
caused problems for some theologians, with several trying to present cases that the
clause means something else.

Wikipedia explains (under, Junia): The consensus among some modern New
Testament scholars is that Junia is referred as a kinsman clearly denoting a woman. The
first reference to Junia as a male comes from Origen (late 2nd early 3rd century). This is
also the earliest comment on Junia's gender in general. However, this version only
appears in a relatively late Medieval copy of Origen's work, which appears to originally
speak of Junia as a female. [] The problem of translating the name arises because,
when the New Testament was composed, Greek was normally written without accents,
although these had already been invented. [] [Scholar Eldon Epp in his book, Junia:
The First Woman Apostle, Augsburg Fortress, 2005.] points out that the earliest copies of
the Greek texts for Romans 16:7 are majuscules (capital letters). There are no accent
marks in them. The importance of this is that the gender of the name depends on the
accentuation. Hence, the earliest texts are inconclusive and we are very dependent on
Patristic interpretation for the gender of Junia. When the miniscules (using lower case
Greek letters) appeared, Junia was accented with a character which indicates the
feminine form of the name. Hence, the textual weight seemed to be for the feminine
name Junia, which text critic Eldon Epp in 2005 believed most scholars accept. However,
the masculine form is preferred in the UBS New Testament, 4th edition, which matches
the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text (the latest editions of each text).
Why is this of any interest?

Because it is often used as a reference point to determine whether women can exert
authority over men in the church. Was Junia a woman apostle in authority? Is it okay to
have women in the congregation serving as pastors or elders? Some people think so,
and some don't. Those who do, often turn to Romans 16:7 as an example of a woman
(Junia) who did so. Those who don't may point to other Scriptures which show that
women should not exercise authority over men in the Christian congregation, such as:

1 Timothy 2:12: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to
keep silent. (NRSV)

1 Corinthians 14:34: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not
allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. (NIV)

Those who believe Bible context urges a submissive role for women, where only men
should be pastors or elders in the congregation, may reflect that understanding by
adding men (a conjecture, indeed) to the statement at Romans 16:7. For example:

men of note: James Moffat New Testament; Twentieth Century New Testament;
Common Edition New Testament; New World Translation*; Revised
Standard Version. (*The NWT Revised Edition of 2013 reads:
men well-known to the apostles.)
men of note: John Worsley New Testament. (Italics his.)
These [men]: An Understandable Version. (William Paul. Brackets his.)
notable men: A Conservative Version. (Walter L. Porter)
noted men: Edgar J. Goodspeed New Testament.
important men: Julian G. Anderson New Testament.
outstanding men: Phillips Modern English NT
men held in high esteem: Amplified Bible.

In the last few decades, there has been a growing trend for Bible translations to be
more gender inclusive, like the New Revised Standard Version, and it shows in Romans
16:7, when compared to its predecessor, the Revised Standard Version.

Q. My copy of The New American Bible has at Numbers 1:52 the words, his own division
of the camp instead of standard or banner as in most other versions. Why does the
NAB use division instead of standard?

A. The New American Bible says at Numbers 1:52: While the other Israelites shall camp
by companies, each in his own division of the camp. NABRE, the Revised Edition of NAB
(2010) offered a slight change: each in their own divisional camps. The Confraternity
Version likewise reads division. Similarly, the New World Translation (2013) has, each
man according to his three-tribe division, with a footnote saying: Or by his standard
(banner). And in chapter two, verse two (2:2), the New Catholic Bible has: each in his
own division. NABRE (New American Bible Revised) reads, where the same word appears:
each in their own divisions.

As noted, most other versions have standard here as The New International Version
does: The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each man in his own camp
under his own standard. Other Bible versions variously render the Hebrew word for
standard as banner: (Holman Christian Standard Bible; Today's English Version;
exegeses Companion Bible); or, flag: (Bible in Basic English; Julia Smith's Translation;
Beck); company: (Complete Apostle's Bible); or in their respective regimental camps
(New Revised Standard Version), rather than standard.

The basic sense of the Hebrew noun deh'gel is, a standard, a banner, a flag, and it
appears numerous times in the Bible book of Numbers. However, the rendering
division used by the NAB is understood as one meaning of the original term. Various
reference works say the following:

According to the New International Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis, Vol. 1 under
this word, it gives as its first definition tribal division.

The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary: Deghel means a banner, a

standard. It appears almost exclusively in Numbers. In Num. 1:52 and 2:2, the tribes
are to encamp by their banners, or ensigns. The next eleven occurrences are
understood to be referring to the division of the tribes, although literally the translation
of the noun is banner in these instances as well; e.g., 10:18, and the banner for the
camp of Reuben set out with their companies.

Keil and Delitzch's COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT: The twelve tribes were to
encamp each one by his standard, by the signs of their fathers' houses, opposite to the
tabernacle (at some distance) round about, and, according to the more precise
directions given afterwards, in such order that on every side of the tabernacle three
tribes were encamped side by side and united under one banner, so that the twelve
tribes formed four large camps or divisions of an army ... [ , (degel)], a standard,
banner, or flag, denotes primarily the larger field sign, possessed by every division
composed of three tribes Neither the Mosaic law, nor the Old Testament generally,
gives us any intimation as to the form or character of the standard ( degel). (Volume I,
Numbers, pp. 16, 17)
Easton's Bible Dictionary (Ensign): The Hebrew word degel denotes the standard given
to each of the four divisions [three tribes each] of the host of the Israelites at the Exodus
(Numbers 1:52; 2:2; 10:14). In Cant. 2:4 it is rendered banner. We have no definite
information as to the nature of these military standards. (Brackets added)

English Standard Version Study Bible: It is not known what Israel's tribal banners and
standards looked like; though other ancient armies had them as well. (Footnote 2:2. )

The International Bible Commentary: The OT gives us no intimation as to the form or

character of the standard (degel), while rabbinic tradition, linking them with the four
faces of the cherubim, is valueless. (Edited by F.F. Bruce)

New Bible Dictionary: Heb. degel, meaning standard or flag, is rendered banner 4
times and standard 14 times in RSV. In the wilderness, each tribe was marked by its
own banner (Nu. 1:52, 2:2-3, etc.). (J.D. Douglas, editor)

The Harper Collins Study Bible: The word translated regiment [as translated in the main
text of NRSV] probably originally referred to a standard or banner that was used to mark
a military unit and then was extended to denote the unit itself, as here (cf. the
translation, standard, of the same word in 10.14, 18, 22, 25). In fifth-century B.C.E. texts
from the Jewish colony at Elephantine in Egypt, this word can even represent a larger
legal entity that includes the families of military men. (New Revised Standard Version, A
New Annotated Edition by the Society of Biblical Literature)

The Schoken Bible, Vol. 1 (by Everett Fox), footnote: banner-contingent: The word degel
originally signifies banner, but comes to mean also the military grouping that stands
under it.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: (1) Standards or ensigns composed of cloth,

metal, or wooden symbols mounted on poles (cf. flagstaff, Isa. 30:17) were used
throughout the ancient Near East and northern Mediterranean by military, cultic and
political institutions This is generally understood to be the meaning of Heb. degel and
nes, although R. de Vaux has argued that degel signifies a division of the army and nes
denotes simply a pole or mast raised as a signal for an army The OT contains little
information about the use of such standards, and the NT makes no reference to them.
Nu. 1:52-2:34 and 10:14-25 describe Israel's use of standards for organization and
identification of the tribes. [] while degel signifies the standard of one of the major
divisions consisting of three tribes. (Revised edition, Vol. 4, p. 610)

ISBE, (Under Banners): It is not known what Israelite banners looked like, but
banners were widely used by other nations in antiquity and commonly took the form of
symbolic animals. (Vol. 1, p. 409, Revised Edition)

Smith Bible's Dictionary: degel a military standard for a large division of an army; and th
the same for a small one. Neither of them, however, expresses the idea which standard
conveys to our minds, viz. a flag. (Ensign)

LEXICON IN VETERIS TESTAMENTI LIBROS (by Koehler and Baumgartner) under de'ghel:
banner ... division (of tribe) Nu 1,52 2,2 f.10.17f... (P. 203)

These citations make it evident that the word deh'gel found at Numbers 1:25 means
basically a standard, a banner, or even a flag. Bible scholars have explained that it
can also mean a division, or the military grouping that stands under it. Some,
perhaps to promote nationalism, or a particular religious agenda, insist that deh'gel
must mean a flag, such as the ones used today as national symbols to represent
governments and countries. Those who hold this view may object to the New American
Bible's translation of division at Numbers 1:52 and at other places where it occurs.
There is simply not enough information to warrant one-sided views. The Hebrew
standards may just have been simple military markers, but if not, evidence is lacking
that Hebrew standards carried heavy religious significance. As one reference work
above said: We have no definite information as to the nature of these military
standards.

Q. Why do early editions of the New World Translation use the word grease in Psalm
23:5 instead of anoint as do most other versions?

A. Apparently, the NWT was aiming to bring the reader closer to the literal reading,
while other versions (NIV, NAB, etc) endeavored to communicate the meaning in
idiomatic English. The New International Version and the New American Bible for example
read: You anoint my head with oil...; while the NWT has: With oil you have greased
my head... (Update: The NWT Revised Edition of 2013 reads: You refresh my
head with oil. Footnote: Or grease. )

One could say that the rendering, You anoint my head with oil is easier to grasp than
the NWT original reading, With oil you have greased my head, which is more obscure.
Both readings, however, may end up misleading the modern reader. On one hand, the
word anoint may generally carry the meaning of appointing someone for God's special
service, as it was done with high priests and kings in ancient times. Of this word The
NET Bible says: The verb [dashan...] is often translated anoint, but this is misleading,
for it might suggest a symbolic act of initiation into royal status... [dashan] here
describes an act of hospitality extended to guests and carries the nuance refresh.
From another standpoint, the message conveyed by greasing someones head with oil
or fat may be unclear to modern non-eastern cultures. But the NW translators choice
of greasing instead of anointing may also hint of their awareness that the biblical term
(anoint) is commonly linked to the symbolic act of initiating prophets, priests, and kings
into divine service. Furthermore, the concept of anointing has taken additional
connotations among the religious through the ages.

However, in what context is the greasing or anointing of the head found?

Psalm 23 begins with: The Lord (Jehovah) is my shepherd is perhaps the most well-
known and best-loved psalm, where the psalmist describes God as the Good Shepherd.
He provides all that his people need, leads them through life, and secures them from all
harm. In verse 5, the psalmist draws on God as a Divine Host receiving David as an
honored guest at his table at a banquet. It was an ancient custom to pour oil on the
head of distinguished guests as a symbol of abundance, prosperity, divine favor and
rejoicing. God as host will provide his guests with protection from enemies.

Anointing was also associated with hospitality and the treatment accorded an honored
guest (Ps 23:5; Lk 7:46; Jn 11:2). (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Lawrence O.
Richards) Therefore, Today's English Version simplifies Psalm 23:5 this way: You prepare
a banquet for me where all my enemies can see me; you welcome me as an honored
guest and fill my cup to the brim.

For those interested in the original language details of Psalm 23:5, consider this:

Hebrew Literal translation: You have made fat* with the oil head of me
Heb: dishshanta* vashshemen roshi

(*Hebrew verb: dishshanta is a Piel, perfect conjugation normally used to indicate

completed action, and according to some, an intensive action.)

The NET Bible comments: The imperfect verbal form in v. 5a carries on the generalizing
mood of vv. 1-4. However, in v. 5b the psalmist switches to a perfect ( dishanta), which
may have a generalizing force as well. But then again the perfect is conspicuous here
and may be present perfect in sense, indicating that the divine host typically pours oil on
his head prior to seating him at the banquet table.

Greek Septuagint (LXX, a translation from the Hebrew original):

You greased (made fat; anointed) in olive oil the head of me
Latin Vulgate: inpinguasti oleo caput meum
You have made fat with oil head mine

(inpinguasti = from pingue, pinguis = fat, grease. J.C. Traupman)

(pingue, pinguis = grasa, manteca, sebo, Vox Latino-Espaol)

Modern Bible Versions:

You generously anoint my head (Anchor Bible Commentaries)

Thou hast richly bathed my head with oil (NEB)
With oil you have greased my head (NWT, 1984 & earlier editions)
You refresh my head with oil. (NWT, 2013 Revised Edition.)
thou hast thoroughly anointed my head with oil (Brenton, LXX)
thou madest fat mine head with oil (Julia Smith Translation)
You have sleeked my head with oil (Concordant Literal Version)
You have lavished oil on my head (The Bible in Living English)
you anoint my head with ointment (exeGeses Companion Bible)
You honor me as your guest (Contemporary English Version)
You have welcomed me as your guest (Living Bible)
You revive my drooping head (The Message)

perfumas con ungento mi cabeza (Biblia de Amrica)

(you perfume my head with ointment)

Baaste de leo o perfumaste mi cabeza (Sagrada Biblia del Pueblo Catlico)

(You bathed me with oil or perfumed my head)

Lexicons:

Strong's Hebrew Lexicon:

shemen, sheh'men; from shaman; grease, especially liquid (as from the olive, often
perfumed); fig. richness

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew-English Lexicon:

1. fat, oil
a. fat, fatness
b. oil, olive oil
1. as staple, medicament or unguent
 2. for anointing
c. fat (of fruitful land, valleys) (metaph)

The Complete Word Study Old Testament:

Shemen; this masc. noun originates from shamen. It refers to grease, liquid, (olive) oil
(Gen. 28;18; 1 Kgs. 6:23; Neh. 8:15) which was sometimes perfumed (Song 1:3); fat,
fatness (Is. 10:27; 25:6).

Commentaries:

Clarkes Commentary on the Bible: Thou anointest my head with oil - Perfumed oil was
poured on the heads of distinguished guests, when at the feasts of great personages.
The woman in the Gospel, who poured the box of ointment of spikenard on the head of
our Lord (see Matthew 26:7, Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:8; Luke 7:46), only acted according
to the custom of her own country, which the host, who invited our Lord, had shamefully
neglected.

Barne's Notes on the Bible: Thou anointest my head with oil - Margin, as in Hebrew,
makest fat. That is, thou dost pour oil on my head so abundantly that it seems to be
made fat with it. The expression indicates abundance. The allusion is to the custom of
anointing the head on festival occasions, as an indication of prosperity and rejoicing
(see Matthew 6:17, note; Luke 7:46, note), and the whole is indicative of the divine favor,
of prosperity, and of joy.

The Life Application Study Bible (New Living Translation) tells us (for Psalm 23:5,6): In
ancient Near Eastern culture, at a feast it was customary to anoint a person with
fragrant oil. Hosts were also expected to protect their guests at all costs. God offers the
protection of a host even when enemies surround us. In the final scene of this psalm,
we see that believers will dwell with the Lord. God, the perfect shepherd and host,
promises to guide and protect us throughout our life and to bring us into his house
forever.

The Common English Study Bible explains in a footnote to the verse: Like the good
shepherd, the generous host provides the daily necessities of life You [bathe my head
with] oil: a gesture of hospitality, communicating safety, shelter, and protection. This
would be similar to the proper paths of Psalm 23:3. And The [expanded] Bible at Psalm
23:5, comments: Oil was a means of refreshment in a hot, dry environment. (The
word in brackets is part of the version title) Thus, the rendering, You refresh my head
with oil appearing in the NWT 2013 Revised Edition is an improvement over previous
editions.
Nowadays, in some countries, the practice of pouring champagne over peoples' heads
to celebrate a victory is not uncommon. As for religious significance, anointing oils are
often used as a means of expressing consecration, prayer, healing and worship. They
are used for a number of different church ceremonies, including confirmation,
baptisms, ordinations and more, though, pouring or smearing oil over the head may not
be the norm in some places.

Consequently, the application of anointing someone's head goes beyond a symbolic act
of initiation. Hence, it is not easy to provide one simple meaningful translation for
everyone today, unless one resorts to multiple paraphrases. However, the translations
above are as good a compromise as one is going to get.

Q. Why do some translations render 1 Corinthians 13:3 as: surrender my body to the
flames [or, to be burned], while others render it, surrender my body so I may boast?

A. The difference is due to manuscript variance. The New International Version has and
surrender my body to the flames but indicates in a footnote: Some early manuscripts
[read] body that I may boast. In turn, the New Revised Standard Version reads, and if I
hand over my body so that I may boast while their footnote has: Other ancient
authorities read body to be burned.

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed., p.498) gives the Greek word
involved here with a {C} rating, meaning that the Editorial Committee of the UBS Greek
NT had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. This work prefers the
reading kauchsomai over kauthsomai saying: A majority of the Committee preferred
[kauchsomai, that I may boast] for the following reasons. (a) After the Church entered
the epoch of martyrdom, in which death by fire was not rare, it is easier to understand
how the variant [kauthsomai] for [kauchsomai] would creep into the text, than the
opposite case. Likewise the passage in Daniel was well known in the Church and might
easily have induced a copyist to alter [kauchsomai] into [kauthsomai, be burned]. On
the other hand, if the latter reading were original, there is no good reason to account
for its being replaced in the oldest copies by the other reading.
(b) The expression [parado to som mou hna kauthsomai] though certainly tolerable
in itself, is noticeable cumbersome (I give up my body, that I may be burnt); one would
have expected, as a more natural expression, [hina kauthe] (...that it may be burnt). But
in the case of [kauchsomai] this difficulty disappears.
(c) The reading [kauthsomai] (=future subjunctive!) while appearing occasionally in
Byzantine times, is a grammatical monstrosity that cannot be attributed to Paul
occasionally, however, the future indicative after [hina] occurs (Ga 2.4; Php 2.10-11)
(d) The argument that the presence of the statement, that I may glory, destroys the
sense of the passage loses some of its force when one observes that for Paul glorying is
not invariably reprehensible; sometimes he regards it as justified (2 Cor 8.24; Php 2.16;
1 Th 2.19; 2 Th 1.4).

Regardless of the translator's manuscript choice, what Paul is articulating is, that, if a
Christian is willing to go so far as surrendering his/her body in flames (burned at the
stake as a martyr) for preaching the gospel of Christ, and boast about it, yet has no
love for others, it accomplishes nothing.

Q. Why does the New Word Translation read at Matthew 2:20, take the young child and
its mother when other versions say: take the child and his mother? Some have
questioned whether the NWT's rendering is disrespectful to the young child Jesus. (Also
Matthew 2:13,14)

A. Herod planned to kill the baby Jesus whom he perceived to be a future threat to his
throne. By divine guidance, Joseph had a dream which warned him to flee to Egypt with
the child Jesus and his mother. The NWT reads a bit differently in these verses: Get up,
take the young child and its mother and flee into Egypt, and stay there until I give you
word. (2:13)

First of all, the Greek word for young child is paidon, a diminutive form of pais (child),
thus, meaning a little or young child.

Secondly, the expression, young child and its mother is a translation of the Greek, to
paidon kai ten metra autou which literally means: the young child and the mother of
it. The words to paidon (the young child) are in the neuter gender, since the term can
be applied to a child of either sex. (The mother (ten metra), is in the feminine gender).
And the personal pronoun autou in the genitive case (the of case), can be either
masculine or neuter gender, for they both share the same endings. Since there is no
hard rule on Greek gender, most translators don't bother to display gender minutiae in
in this Scripture.

This may explain why some interlinear translations show his mother instead of its
mother. It is up to translators to choose how various gender forms are to be rendered
in our language. The NWT translators chose to apply autou in the neuter gender to
agree with the words the young child which in Greek are in the neuter gender. Thus, it
appears the translators were attempting to approximate the Greek better in their literal
translation, while most Bible versions prefer the more natural English reading, showing
his. No disrespect in doing so. A few other translations reflect the literal reading as
did earlier editions of NWT:
 take unto thee the child and its mother (J.B. Rotherham)
take along the young child and the mother of it (Kingdom Interlinear)
take the infant and the mother of it (Emphatic Diaglott)
take to thee the little child and its mother (Darby Bible Translation)
take along the young child and its mother (21st Century NT, Left Column)

Update: The NWT (2013 Revised Edition) reads instead: take the young child and his
mother, which goes on to show the compromises translators often have to make to
improve readability.

Q. Most Bible versions say at Galatians 6:7, God is not mocked, but one version,
The Bible in Living English reads differently: there is no thumbing your nose at God.
Why the difference?

A. The words there is no thumbing your nose at God is an attempt by Bible translator
Steven T. Byington to closely reflect the Greek meaning: God is not being nosed. [Greek:
thes ou mykterzetai]. The key word here is mykterzo, which derives from myktr, nose
[or, nostril], that is, to turn up one's nose in scorn and hence to mock, treat with
contempt. Says John Eadie's Commentary: The verb [mykterzo], from
[myktr], is to turn up the nose at, to sneer at, to mock. Sept[uagint] Job 22:19;
Psalms 80:7; Isaiah 37:22; Jeremiah 20:7, -there representing the Heb. [ lagh ];

Proverbs 1:30; Proverbs 12:8; 1 Maccabees 7:34; 1 Maccabees 7:39.

The verb mykterzo (= lit, to turn up the nose at) occurs only in Galatians 6:7 with the sense
of mock. Other versions:

God cannot be mocked (NIV)

God is not to be mocked at (James L. Tomanek)
God is not to be scoffed at. (Weymouth New Testament)
God is not ridiculed (Modern Literal Version)
No one makes a fool of God (The Message; Todays English Version; J.G. Anderson)
God will not let himself be treated with contempt. (H.W. Cassirer N.T.)
You cannot cheat God (New Century Version)
God cannot be deceived (Christian Community Bible)
God is not made sport of (Basic English Version)
God wont have people turning their noses up at him. (The Kingdom New Testament)
God is not one to be sneered at (to have a nose turned up at; to be scorned,
mocked or treated like a fool), for whatever a person is in the habit of
sowing, this also he will reap. (Jonathan Mitchell's New Testament)

Most Bible versions communicate the warning sense well: God is not to be mocked at
(Tomanek), lest we incur his judgment: A man reaps what he sows. If you follow your
selfish desires, you will harvest destruction, but if you follow the Spirit, you will harvest
eternal life. (Galatians 6:8, Contemporary English Version)

-----------------------

( LibreOffice, a free and open office suite was used for this writing with Font Noto Sans,
size 12) available for Linux, Mac and Windows. www.libreoffice.org