In 2 Samuel, chapters 7 & 9, there are two Hebrew words that appear to be from the same root with the meaning ‘dog’ (כלב/keleb). In the second passage, Mephibosheth, upon being showered with King David’s mercy, asks, “What is your servant, that you have turned [your attention] to the dead dog that I am?” (9:9; my translation)

Earlier, in chapter 7, David is pouring out his heart in humble thanksgiving concerning YHWH’s promise to David that his will be an everlasting kingdom. In verse 21, he prays, “For the sake of Your [W]ord and according to Your heart/will/intention (כלבך/kalibaka) You have done this great deed to make Your servant known /OR/ to teach Your servant.” [my translation; I lean toward ‘to make Your servant known, although only one translation/paraphrase – The New English Bible – renders a similar understanding of the phrase.]

It is here that one of the versions that I checked, The Jerusalem Bible*, ran afoul in its translation of the 7:21 passage. A text note provided the following explanation: “‘your servant’s’ [sic] Greek, Ch[ange to]: ‘your word’s’ [sic] Hebr. ‘this dog of yours’ conj[ecture]; ‘according to your heart’ Hebr. The whole verse is uncertain.” The other point of departure from other translations, then, was substituting ‘servant’ for ‘[W]ord.’

Two, and perhaps three, transgressions were committed by the translators. First and foremost, the translators let preconceived notions of what the text – in their opinion – should say, rather than allowing the text as given to speak for itself.

Of the two words misrepresented in The Jerusalem Bible translation, it is up for grabs, which drove the other. The Hebrew radical for ‘word’ is דבר/d-b-r, while ‘servant’ is עבד/a-b-d. As can be seen, in both radicals, two letters are the same. Since the Hebrew radical for ‘servant’ is repeated throughout this section of Scripture, the translators may have argued that a scribal error was made while copying. However, because this is the only occurrence of the Hebrew radical ‘word’ in this section, it seems quite certain that the scribe was very intentional in his transcription and fully comprehended the meaning of the sentence.

Now that the translators were dealing with a person, it was apparently fairly intuitive – given the form of the next word in question (כלבך/kalibaka) – to think that the humble servant would compare himself to a dog. After all, it certainly looks like that! But, to suggest an alternative reading in this instance is to force an issue that is beyond doubt.

Or it may have been the latter driving the former. Either way, the translators made poor choices. In the case of the form כלבך/kalibaka, what we have is the preposition כ/k joined to the radical לבב and the 2nd person singular suffix ך/k = according to your heart/will/intention. In other words, the translators should have taken the text as given and not manipulated it according to a contrived preconception of what the ‘true’ meaning of the verse had to be. In my opinion, this is an excellent example of Rome’s usurpation of the wholly inspired and inerrant authority of the Bible as comprised of 66 books.

*From the Editor’s Foreword: “The introductions and notes are a direct translation from the French (La Bible de Jerusalem), though revised and brought up to date in some places–account being taken of the decisions and general implications of the Second Vatican Council.

“The translation of the biblical text itself could clearly not be made from the French. In the case of a few books, the initial draft was made from the French and was then compared word for word with the Hebrew or Aramaic by the General Editor and amended where necessary to ensure complete conformity with the ancient text. For the much greater part, the initial drafts were made from the Hebrew or Greek and simultaneously compared with the French when questions of variant reading or interpretation arose. Whichever system was used, therefore, the same intended result was achieved, that is, an entirely faithful version of the ancient texts which, in doubtful points, preserves the text established and (for the most part) the interpretation adopted by the French scholars in light of the most recent researches in the fields of history, archeology, and literary criticism.”

Alexander Jones Christ’s College Liverpool 1 June 1966