Ah. That’s because that website was apparently closed after I posted that comment. It now redirects to whichever grifter owns or bought the domain.

When that happens, you can always take the link to archive.org and look for a capture near the time the link was posted, or the last capture before that time (which in this case you know precisely from my comment’s timestamp).

When I do that myself, I get this recovery of the deleted page. Which unfortunately lacks all the graphs.

What I then do is try searching the article to see if it was moved or republished anywhere, and in this case it hasn’t (this RSS edition is as defective as the archived one).

So here, only half the data is recoverable. But often you can get it all through this sequence. Since none are complete, I didn’t change the original link so other readers can see what’s in the link now and experiment with solving this problem, as the technique works for all broken links on all websites ever, so it’s valuable to learn.

But I also appreciate being told a link is dead like this, so I can fix or remove or explain it. So thanks!

“this study” link goes somewhere weird.

it lacks even a single example of what she is talking about

To be fair, this is a teaser for her activities elsewhere, so I’m not sure an example is necessary here.

But its promotional nature is one of the layers to be unpeeled. This publicity tweet is an interesting variant on concern trolling: “I’m worried that examining this (relatively mundane) topic will offend people.”

Which people? Some careful audience management going on there: “I’m edgy, but you don’t need to worry.”

But that’s getting way off even the original tangent, so I’ll leave it at that.

Wolf has unfortunately become a bit of a crank. And this tweet seems on trend with that, because it lacks even a single example of what she is talking about. So it is not possible to evaluate it. Which is a characteristic behavior of cranks.

But with respect to your point, that is indeed even funnier. She seems oblivious to the fact that what she is complaining about has actually already happened with the Greek text itself. There are no original words of Jesus. If ever there were, they are forever lost. So what we have is dubious translations all the way down.

Dr Naomi Wolf @naomirwolf Apr 17

Hi all — so. I skipped ahead to the New Testament, with a Koine Greek – English side-by-side literal translation, and what am I to do — so much of the NT has been mistranslated, or, shall I say, creatively translated, in addition to the OT having often been mistranslated. Is it offensive if I analyze this fact when we get to the NT? The creative translations or outright mistranslations of the NT often write out what was familiar language of a radical/reforming Jewish teacher/Redeemer of Israel, and heighten or present other language that introduces or showcases the idea of the establishment of a new (Hellenistic-oriented) religion. As in later translations of the OT, there is often distance introduced in later translations of the NT between “the Sons of God” (that is, humans) and God, that is not there in the original. I think this set of insights is important but I do fear offending people.

To consider just one aspect of her tweet: She’s saying that NT translations replace the authentic words of a historical activist Jesus preaching reform of Jewish society and religion (“write out [i.e. remove] what was familiar language of a radical/reforming Jewish teacher/Redeemer of Israel”) with politically & theologically distorted interpretations that justify the establishment of the Christian religion (“heighten or present other language that introduces or showcases the idea of the establishment of a new (Hellenistic-oriented) religion”).

Not, in the abstract, an unreasonable proposition. But she’s explicitly talking about English translations of the NT Greek – apparently failing to notice that unless Jesus preached in Greek, the Koine source is already an interpretation of his original (presumably) Aramaic, and so all the same considerations apply. And even if we could somehow square the language circle, none of it was written by Jesus himself anyway, so that doesn’t really help.

I have to confess I haven’t read the responses to her tweet, so I don’t know how its many fascinating layers have been unpeeled by others. And I also confess that, given her intellectual trajectory, I’m hesitant to delve into the world of Naomi Wolf. Especially on Twitter. But I thought I’d share.

I am not sure what you are referring to. The phrase “only wise God” appears in the ESV only in Romans, and there it says “to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ,” and that is indeed in the Greek (it just doesn’t equate God with Jesus).

The last verse of Jude even in the ESV says “to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” Which matches the Greek reasonably enough.

The insertion of the word “wise” occurs in the KJV and translations reliant on that. Maybe there was an earlier edition of the ESV that matched the KJV on that, too, but it would be tedious to check (it’s supposed to be closer to the RSV). In any event, the word was dropped from other translations than rely on the KJV because it was found to derive from faulty manuscripts when the KJV was produced. Manuscripts containing that word start only around the eighth century; and it was probably a scribal harmonization with Romans.

But in no translation is God said in Jude 25 to be Jesus. They all say “through” Jesus. So they all agree Jude saw them as separate. Some translations do omit the reference to Jesus altogether, but I have no immediate idea of why (there are no manuscripts that do).

Thanks. I noticed in the ESV (Crossway edition) that in the last verse of Jude where it mentions “The Only Wise God” it adds, “Jesus Christ” after “God”. That part is not in the Greek, but is that the “sense” in which the author originally intended or is this complete apologetics?

All translations are problematic. None outperform on any specific book.

The unreliabilities in Bible translations correlate with specific verses as they happen by chance to touch on dogmas or faith assumptions (or even mundane literary or cultural assumptions having nothing to do with religion); they do not correlate to specific books.