Exodus 21:22 – 23 bears on the abortion discussion. What happens when an unclear version of an Old Testament text is used in preference to clear versions? In a word, bias happens. Being biased of course is an inescapable part of being human; the contention here is that using a hugely unclear version represents abject bias. That bias comes through any translation from Greek into English by the translators is unsurprising and simply a necessary part of a translator’s task. Some might even argue that the incorporation of certain human ‘bias elements’ is part of the Spirit of God’s good intent, similar to how the humanity of Jesus was incorporated and united to divinity. In this Exodus text, there is abject bias that directly influences the abortion debate born out of the New Revised Standard Version’s translation. Framing this is the first task; the second task is to investigate the organization responsible for this translation. Can it be the case that abject bias is driven by modern issues, using those issues to decide how to translate an OT text?

The ancient Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text, comes through this way in English. The translation is mine, but I have been careful to let the text be overly wooded with little interpretive liberty taken:

“If men are fighting and they smite a pregnant woman and her child(ren) come out and no harm is, he {the man who struck the woman} will be fined a fine as what the husband of the woman sets, and he will give it according to the judges. If, however, harm occurred to the child(ren) then you shall give life in place of life . . ..”

Here is how the New Revised Standard Version translates this text:

“When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life . . .”

There is blatant logical incoherence in the NRSV’s translation. The miscarriage is harmful and yet a fine should be punishment for causing the miscarriage while at the same time the text calls for “life for life” as punishment. Which is it? Someone might protest that the harm considered here is concerning the mother and not the child — starting to be framed strikingly like a modern abortion discussion.  The first line of the NRSV deals with maximum harm to the child (= miscarriage, death), but the Hebrew Masoretic text’s first line tells us the opposite, that “no harm is” to the child.

 . . . so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows . . . (NRSV)

. . . and her child comes out and no harm is . . . (MT)

The difference in meaning is a canyon sized gap. The NRSV instructs that a monetary fine suffices as punishment, for covering the death of the child. The MT teaches that only if the child is born prematurely with no harm to him does a monetary fine suffice as punishment. How do other modern English translations render this text?

When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life . . . (ESV)

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life . . . (NASB)

If men fight and hit a pregnant woman and her child is born prematurely, but there is no serious injury, he will surely be punished in accordance with what the woman’s husband demands of him, and he will pay what the court decides. But if there is serious injury, then you will given a life for a life . . . (NET)

When men get in a fight and hit a pregnant woman so that her children are born prematurely but there is no injury, the one who hit her must be fined as the woman’s husband demands from him, and he must pay according to judicial assessment. If there is an injury, then you must give life for life . . . (CSB)

If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman’s husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges. But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life . . . (GNB)

And if men fight and they injure a pregnant woman, and her children go out and there is not serious injury, he will surely be fined as the woman’s husband demands concerning him and as the judges determine. And if there is serious injury, you will give life in place of life . . . (LEB)

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . (NIV)

And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges; and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life . . . (Young’s Literal Interpretation)

More differences prevail than this between these two texts, but is there another ancient version of this text that the NRSV might be using for its translation? Yes, there is, and it is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (most scholars date it to around 200 B.C. to 0 A.D.).

“Now if to men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not having been fully formed, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child has been fully formed, he will give life for in place of life . . .”

The italics show a verb, ἐξεικονίζομαι (exeikonizomai), used twice in this passage but never used anywhere else ever in Greek literature. This is known as a hapax legomena, a word only used in one context. Because of its lack of use, determining its meaning is notoriously difficult — I put in a meaning for the word pulled from Lexicon on the Septuagint. I will offer a bit of insight but preface this by saying I am engaging in conjecture: the word is a compound word, likely the combination of ek and eikon potentially having the meaning of “resembling a deviated semblance.” Neither I nor anyone else knows what this word means: that is the larger point. The meanings of words are built out of contexts and situations; if we do not have enough contexts or situations for the word’s usage, locking down a determinate meaning is impossible. If my suggested meaning for the verb is used, we come out with a translation very similar in meaning to the ancient Hebrew (MT) text.

“Now if two men fight and strike a woman being pregnant, and her child might come out not resembling a deviated semblance, he will be punished with a fine according to whatever the husband of the woman might set: he will give in accord with what is decided, but if the child resembles a deviated semblance, he will give life in place of life . . . (trans. mine, from LXX)”

The contention here is that the NRSV’s translation is evidence of abject bias. Two major supports demonstrate this: (1) the ancient Hebrew text is considered more ancient and thus more authentic than the Septuagint, and (2) why bother using the Septuagint text (LXX for short) when it has a hapax legomena in it, whose meaning is impossible to decide? The LXX could very well have the meaning I have crafted for it, but why would I bother dealing with a meaning of a verb I have to guess about when I could just use an abundantly clear text like the MT? The answer is that a person would do so because they have an agenda.

The NRSV’s abject bias is on display, translating Exodus 21:22 – 23 to support that a monetary fine is all that is needed to cover the death of a child still in the womb. As a translator myself, I am baffled why the NRSV translators would use an unclear text (the LXX) when they have the clarity of the MT. The MT clearly equates a human life in the womb as to that of one out of the womb. They are equally valuable. This resoundingly puts this Old Testament text on the side of the pro-life movement. The NRSV’s manner of translation this text diminishes the value of human life in the womb by making the penalty for the child’s death so light. God said earlier in the OT that “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).” Although it is fitting to allege that the NRSV’s version of the text advances the idea that a “fetus in the womb is not yet fully human,” it would be going too far to say that the NRSV’s version solidly supports abortion. The text is about the inadvertent death of a child caused by the violence of men. The child’s death is accidental. Still, suspicion is appropriate about the NRSV’s agenda given the abject bias of the translation.

In closing, there are broader scriptural themes that the NRSV’s version breaks away from: the lex talionis (law of retribution) of the Old Testament Law would require “life for life,” blood requires blood as retribution (Gen. 9:6), and God’s knowledge of a person predates or accompanies his or her time being formed in the womb (Ps. 139). That abject bias can make its way into translation of the Bible is clear. Modern issues may just cloud the judgment of translators, and that include me too. The influence of bias can only be managed well by an admission of one’s own biases, and that biases are inescapably a part of every person. Much of the translator’s work is unambiguous; we can be certain about what God has said. For those situations like Exod. 21:22 – 23, God instituted the professions of pastors and teaching, or elders and theologians.

Dr. Scalise