OBST830: Discussion Board
Angelology
Anthropology
Apologetics
Bibliology
Christology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
Ethics
Hamartiology
History
Homilie
OBST830: Prophets I
Pneumatology
Soteriology
Theology Proper
Angelology
Anthropology
Apologetics
Bibliology
Christology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
Ethics
Hamartiology
History
Homilie
OBST830: Prophets I
Pneumatology
Soteriology
Theology Proper
- Pastor
- 2Corinthians12
- accountability
- Ancient Israel
- Apostate Church
- ApostlePaul
- ApostolicTeachings
- Biblical Interpretation
- Biblical Reflection
- Biblical Teaching
- BiblicalTruth
- bivocational ministry
- Call to Action
- Catechism Revitalization
- Christ
- Christ's Fulfillment
- Christian Discipleship
- Christian Growth
- Christian Leadership
- Christian Responsibility
- Christian vocation
- Christian Warriors
- ChristianFaith
- ChristianHumility
- ChristianLife
- ChristianSuffering
- ChristInUs
- Church
- church authority
- Church Culture
- Church Doctrine
- church leaders
- Church Mission
- Church Reform
- Church Relevance
- Complacency in Faith
- Covenant with Abraham
- Cultural Shifts
- culture
- Denominationalism
- discernment
- Divine Encounter with Jesus
- DivineRevelation
- Encountering Jesus in Prayer
- Evangelism
- faith
- Faith and Grace
- Faith and Tradition
- Faith in Action
- Faith in God
- faithfulness
- God's Revelation
- God’s Calling in Ordinary Lives
- gospel
- Gospel
- Gospel Presentation
- Great Commission
- HolySpirit
- IndwellingChrist
- Isaiah's Prophecy
- Israelite Salvation
- Jesus the Messiah
- Karl Barth
- labor and calling
- letter to the Church
- Luther's Stand
- Martin Luther
- Messianic Prophecies
- Ministry of the Word
- narrative
- NewTestamentStudies
- Old Testament Salvation
- Paul's example
- PaulineTheology
- Personal Testimony of Faith in Christ
- Promise of Christ
- Protestant Reformation
- Redemption through Faith in Jesus
- Reformation
- Rethinking the Nature of Sacrifice
- sacred and secular
- Salvation History
- satan
- Scripture
- Scripture Authority
- ScriptureUnderstanding
- sola scriptura
- Sola Scriptura
- Spiritual Warfare
- SpiritualExamination
- storytelling
- submission
- The Calling Christian Story
- The Work of Hands
- Theology of Faith
- ThornInTheFlesh
- TrueBeliever
- Unity
- Westminster Catechism
- Work
- work as worship
Lost in Translation: The Perils of Mistranslation in ANE Studies and Biblical Law
January 26, 2025
[Paul Whitehorn]
Lost in Translation: The Perils of Mistranslation in ANE Studies and Biblical Law
Throughout history, language has served as both a bridge and a barrier to understanding. Nowhere is this more evident than in the study of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts, where translation errors can dramatically alter interpretations of historical and theological concepts. The infamous case of Thamsanqa Jantjie, the fake sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in 2013, provides a striking modern parallel.¹ Just as Jantjie’s hand gestures bore no resemblance to real sign language, some translations of ANE texts impose meanings that are entirely foreign to the original language and cultural context.
One glaring example of this can be found in Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, where the translation of Akkadian legal terms is not just flawed but fundamentally misleading.² If scholars impose fabricated meanings onto ANE legal texts, how can we trust comparisons between these texts and biblical law? More importantly, if modern readers accept mistranslations as fact, how does that impact our understanding of covenantal theology, the Mosaic Law, and the uniqueness of divine revelation?
The Problem of Mistranslation: A Case Study
A particularly egregious example appears on page 114 of Old Testament Parallels, where a legal phrase is translated as follows: “If one elite male tunnels through the wall of another’s house, then he is to be executed and his body hung at the entrance to the tunnel.”³
There are three major errors in this translation:
This error is not minor. It distorts the original intent of the legal text and misrepresents the legal structure of ANE societies, where class distinctions were significant but not arbitrary. If we cannot trust the accuracy of fundamental translations, how can we make fair comparisons between ANE legal traditions and biblical law?
Treaties and Covenants: The Role of Authority in ANE and Biblical Law
Despite these errors, there are genuine parallels between ANE legal traditions and the Mosaic covenant. Ancient treaties often included preambles identifying the authority behind the agreement. The treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, for example, begins with, “Hattusilis, Great King of Hatti.”⁷ Similarly, the Mosaic covenant begins with, “I am the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2).
Both systems also include stipulations for obedience. The Hittite treaty states, “If a foreign army invades the lands of Ramesses… the Great King of Hatti shall come and fight against the enemy of Egypt.”⁸ Likewise, Exodus 20:3 stipulates, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The structure of divine and royal agreements in ANE societies shares similarities with biblical covenant theology, though the theological implications in Scripture far exceed mere political alliances.
ANE Legal Traditions vs. Mosaic Law: A Theological Distinction
While the Mosaic covenant shares structural elements with ANE treaties, its underlying foundation is radically different. ANE legal codes, such as Hammurabi’s Law 5, imposed financial penalties and professional disqualification for legal incompetence:
**“He shall pay twelve times the amount of the loss which had occasioned that trial. Furthermore, they shall have him removed from being a judge in the assembly and from his place on the legal bench.”**⁹
This principle of accountability is sound. If applied today, scholars responsible for mistranslating Akkadian legal texts would owe their students tuition refunds and would be permanently barred from academic positions! However, Mosaic Law introduces a revolutionary concept absent in ANE legal traditions: universal justice under divine authority.
Unlike Hammurabi’s Code, which differentiates punishments based on social class, biblical law applies the same legal standard to all people, regardless of status. Exodus 21:23-25 (lex talionis) establishes, “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,” without privileging the wealthy or powerful. This egalitarian approach to justice is unique in the ANE legal landscape and speaks to the ethical superiority of Mosaic law over its contemporaries.
Apodictic vs. Casuistic Law: Debunking a Common Misconception
A common misconception in biblical studies is that Mosaic law is unique because it contains apodictic commands (absolute prohibitions such as “Do not steal” or “Do not murder”). However, this feature is not exclusive to the Torah. Apodictic laws appear frequently in ANE texts, particularly in royal decrees and divine commands.
For example, Lipit-Ishtar’s epilogue states: **“May he who will not commit any evil deed with regard to it, who will not damage my handiwork, who will [not] erase its inscription.”**¹⁰
While casuistic law (“if-then” legal cases) dominates ANE legal codes, the inclusion of apodictic laws in the Mosaic tradition does not make it unique. Instead, what makes the Torah distinct is its universal application of these laws under divine justice rather than royal decree.
The Ethical Superiority of Mosaic Law
Hammurabi’s laws claim divine backing from Shamash and Marduk, yet their focus remains on reinforcing royal authority. Hammurabi declares: **“If that man has paid attention to the commandments… Shamash will surely make that man’s rule last.”**¹¹ By contrast, the Mosaic covenant centers entirely on the relationship between God and His people. The laws are not meant to elevate a human ruler but to bring Israel into a communal, covenantal relationship with Yahweh.
The ultimate takeaway from this study is simple yet profound: Mosaic law is not unique because of its format, but because of its Author. The ethical and theological distinctions between the Mosaic covenant and ANE legal traditions are not matters of literary structure but of divine intention. Yahweh calls His people into a relationship of mutual love, trust, and eternal purpose. This stands in stark contrast to the self-centered, political motivations of ANE kings who sought to consolidate their own power.
Conclusion
The study of ANE legal traditions, biblical covenants, and translation accuracy is not merely an academic exercise—it has profound implications for theology and biblical interpretation. When translators fail in their task, they distort history and theology alike.
For those engaging in biblical studies, the lesson is clear: we cannot rely on secondhand translations. If we wish to understand the true nature of God’s law, we must be willing to dig into the original languages ourselves. Anything less is an invitation to another “Jantjie Special.”
Footnotes
Lost in Translation: The Perils of Mistranslation in ANE Studies and Biblical Law
Throughout history, language has served as both a bridge and a barrier to understanding. Nowhere is this more evident than in the study of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts, where translation errors can dramatically alter interpretations of historical and theological concepts. The infamous case of Thamsanqa Jantjie, the fake sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service in 2013, provides a striking modern parallel.¹ Just as Jantjie’s hand gestures bore no resemblance to real sign language, some translations of ANE texts impose meanings that are entirely foreign to the original language and cultural context.
One glaring example of this can be found in Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, where the translation of Akkadian legal terms is not just flawed but fundamentally misleading.² If scholars impose fabricated meanings onto ANE legal texts, how can we trust comparisons between these texts and biblical law? More importantly, if modern readers accept mistranslations as fact, how does that impact our understanding of covenantal theology, the Mosaic Law, and the uniqueness of divine revelation?
The Problem of Mistranslation: A Case Study
A particularly egregious example appears on page 114 of Old Testament Parallels, where a legal phrase is translated as follows: “If one elite male tunnels through the wall of another’s house, then he is to be executed and his body hung at the entrance to the tunnel.”³
There are three major errors in this translation:
- The Word for "Elite Male" is Completely Fabricated – The term "𒀀𒉿𒇻" does not mean “elite male” in Akkadian. It simply refers to a “free man” or “citizen.” The correct term for an elite individual would be "𒈛𒀭𒊏" (officer) or "𒇽𒌤𒇻𒍪𒉿" (nobleman). The translator's decision to impose an elite status onto this word is an unwarranted assumption that alters the original legal implications.⁴
- The Verbal Form is Incorrect – The Akkadian verb "𒅁𒇻𒌑𒋛," from the root "𒅁𒇻𒋛," means “to breach or dig through” in the G-stem perfective. This tense (equivalent to the aorist in Koine Greek or qal perfect in Hebrew) conveys a completed action. The translation should read, “If a man has tunneled,” not “tunnels.”⁵
- Misinterpretation of "The Tunnel" – The Akkadian phrase "𒁉𒅆𒅖𒅋" does not refer to a physical tunnel but rather to the “breach” or “opening” made by the tunneling. A more accurate rendering would be, “He shall be hung at the entrance to the breach,” rather than “the entrance to the tunnel." ⁶
This error is not minor. It distorts the original intent of the legal text and misrepresents the legal structure of ANE societies, where class distinctions were significant but not arbitrary. If we cannot trust the accuracy of fundamental translations, how can we make fair comparisons between ANE legal traditions and biblical law?
Treaties and Covenants: The Role of Authority in ANE and Biblical Law
Despite these errors, there are genuine parallels between ANE legal traditions and the Mosaic covenant. Ancient treaties often included preambles identifying the authority behind the agreement. The treaty between Ramesses II and Hattusilis III, for example, begins with, “Hattusilis, Great King of Hatti.”⁷ Similarly, the Mosaic covenant begins with, “I am the Lord your God” (Exod. 20:2).
Both systems also include stipulations for obedience. The Hittite treaty states, “If a foreign army invades the lands of Ramesses… the Great King of Hatti shall come and fight against the enemy of Egypt.”⁸ Likewise, Exodus 20:3 stipulates, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” The structure of divine and royal agreements in ANE societies shares similarities with biblical covenant theology, though the theological implications in Scripture far exceed mere political alliances.
ANE Legal Traditions vs. Mosaic Law: A Theological Distinction
While the Mosaic covenant shares structural elements with ANE treaties, its underlying foundation is radically different. ANE legal codes, such as Hammurabi’s Law 5, imposed financial penalties and professional disqualification for legal incompetence:
**“He shall pay twelve times the amount of the loss which had occasioned that trial. Furthermore, they shall have him removed from being a judge in the assembly and from his place on the legal bench.”**⁹
This principle of accountability is sound. If applied today, scholars responsible for mistranslating Akkadian legal texts would owe their students tuition refunds and would be permanently barred from academic positions! However, Mosaic Law introduces a revolutionary concept absent in ANE legal traditions: universal justice under divine authority.
Unlike Hammurabi’s Code, which differentiates punishments based on social class, biblical law applies the same legal standard to all people, regardless of status. Exodus 21:23-25 (lex talionis) establishes, “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,” without privileging the wealthy or powerful. This egalitarian approach to justice is unique in the ANE legal landscape and speaks to the ethical superiority of Mosaic law over its contemporaries.
Apodictic vs. Casuistic Law: Debunking a Common Misconception
A common misconception in biblical studies is that Mosaic law is unique because it contains apodictic commands (absolute prohibitions such as “Do not steal” or “Do not murder”). However, this feature is not exclusive to the Torah. Apodictic laws appear frequently in ANE texts, particularly in royal decrees and divine commands.
For example, Lipit-Ishtar’s epilogue states: **“May he who will not commit any evil deed with regard to it, who will not damage my handiwork, who will [not] erase its inscription.”**¹⁰
While casuistic law (“if-then” legal cases) dominates ANE legal codes, the inclusion of apodictic laws in the Mosaic tradition does not make it unique. Instead, what makes the Torah distinct is its universal application of these laws under divine justice rather than royal decree.
The Ethical Superiority of Mosaic Law
Hammurabi’s laws claim divine backing from Shamash and Marduk, yet their focus remains on reinforcing royal authority. Hammurabi declares: **“If that man has paid attention to the commandments… Shamash will surely make that man’s rule last.”**¹¹ By contrast, the Mosaic covenant centers entirely on the relationship between God and His people. The laws are not meant to elevate a human ruler but to bring Israel into a communal, covenantal relationship with Yahweh.
The ultimate takeaway from this study is simple yet profound: Mosaic law is not unique because of its format, but because of its Author. The ethical and theological distinctions between the Mosaic covenant and ANE legal traditions are not matters of literary structure but of divine intention. Yahweh calls His people into a relationship of mutual love, trust, and eternal purpose. This stands in stark contrast to the self-centered, political motivations of ANE kings who sought to consolidate their own power.
Conclusion
The study of ANE legal traditions, biblical covenants, and translation accuracy is not merely an academic exercise—it has profound implications for theology and biblical interpretation. When translators fail in their task, they distort history and theology alike.
For those engaging in biblical studies, the lesson is clear: we cannot rely on secondhand translations. If we wish to understand the true nature of God’s law, we must be willing to dig into the original languages ourselves. Anything less is an invitation to another “Jantjie Special.”
Footnotes
- The New York Times, "Nelson Mandela Sign Language Flap: 'Fake' Interpreter at Memorial Service," YouTube video, December 11, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qu1cs6Fhk8&t=2s.
- Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East, 4th ed. (New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2016), 114.
- Ibid.
- M. E. J. Richardson, Hammurabi’s Laws: Text, Translation, and Glossary (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 41.
- Richard I. Caplice, Introduction to Akkadian (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1980), 31.
- Ibid.
- Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels, 94.
- Ibid., 96.
- Ibid., 161.
- James Bennett Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 161.
- Ibid., E19.
Chaplain WHITEHORN
I'm honored to serve as the State Prison Chaplain at Avon Park Correctional Institution. My journey into ministry was deeply shaped by my military experience as a Combat Veteran Sergeant and later as an Officer in the U.S. Army. Alongside my military career, I've pursued a lifelong passion for theology and scholarship, beginning with a Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Crichton College. I continued advanced studies at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, earned a Master of Divinity from Liberty University, and I'm currently completing my Ph.D., driven by a desire to understand and faithfully communicate God’s Word.