Mistake in the spanish NVI

[doulos]

I hope this is the right place to post this.
There seems to be a mistake in the Spanish version of the NIV. (NVI in spanish)
Daniel 9:25 Entiende bien lo siguiente: Habrá siete semanas desde la promulgación del decreto que ordena la reconstrucción de Jerusalén hasta la llegada del príncipe elegido.Después de eso, habrá sesenta y dos semanas más. Entonces será reconstruida Jerusalén, con sus calles y murallas.[3] Pero cuando los tiempos apremien,

For those that can't read spanish:
Daniel 9:25 Understand well the following: There will be 7 weeks from the time the decree is ordered for the reconstruction of Jerusalem until the arrival of the annointed prince. After that there will be 62 weeks more. Then Jerusalem will be reconstructed with its streets and wall. But when the time has com,

So the mistake appears to be that the sixty-two weeks is out of order. It should be with the seven weeks, because it apparently is saying that after 7 weeks the annointed prince will arrive and then there will be 62 weeks more. The English translation of the NIV appears to be right:

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree [6] to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, [7] the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

Is this a mistake?

[Etcetera]

Doulos:

Greetings in the holy name:

There seems to be a mistake in the Spanish version of the NIV (NVI in Spanish).

Daniel 9.25:

Entiende bien lo siguiente: Habrá siete semanas desde la promulgación del decreto que ordena la reconstrucción de Jerusalén hasta la llegada del príncipe elegido. Después de eso, habrá sesenta y dos semanas más. Entonces será reconstruida Jerusalén, con sus calles y murallas. Pero cuando los tiempos apremien....

Is this a mistake?

No, it is not a mistake. That is one valid way of reading the Hebrew of that verse. John Goldingay in his commentary on Daniel translates (page 226):

You must understand and perceive,
from the coming forth of a word to build a restored Jerusalem
to an anointed, a leader, there will be seven sevens.
For sixty-two sevens it will be restored and rebuilt,
square and moat.
But in the pressure of the times
(that is, after the sixty-two sevens)
an anointed will be cut off
and will have neither the city nor the sanctuary.

This translation follows the Masoretic punctuation of the text, and some commentators feel that this punctuation balances the Hebrew line better, and also makes better sense of the seven sevens, since nothing seems to mark them off in the usual translation. I myself am hardly qualified to comment, but what is important here is that the rendering of the Spanish NVI that you gave is possible, and in fact follows the standard Hebrew punctuation given by the Masoretes.

Goldingay comments on page 229:

NIV "seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens’" (cf. G. Syr) suggests that the appearance of "an anointed, a prince" comes after sixty-nine "sevens," but MT’s division of the verse (which this ignores) seems more natural.

That said, what is very odd is why the NIV would not insist on a little more consistency between its language translations. This one must have slipped by. Good catch, Doulos.

Just for comparison, the Reina-Valera (1960) has the more typical translation:

Sabe, pues, y entiende, que desde la salida de la orden para restaurar y edificar a Jerusalén hasta el Mesías Príncipe, habrá siete semanas, y sesenta y dos semanas; se volverá a edificar la plaza y el muro en tiempos angustiosos.

Again, nice careful reading on your part.

In his love.

Etcetera.

[doulos]

But if it is read like this, who is the annointed ruler that appears on the scene 49 years after the issuance of the decree?

[Etcetera]

I have no idea. But that is the way the Masoretes punctuated the verse. I prefer the other reading, myself, partly for that very reason.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Griggsy]

I have no idea. But that is the way the Masoretes punctuated the verse. I prefer the other reading, myself, partly for that very reason.

In him.

Etcetera.
I am interested in translation and interpretation. How much does bias in theology influence any translations? Are translators using the best Biblical texts? [ I read 11 languages.] There was the Bible that omitted don't in the commandments in English. Are there similar in other languages?

[James Peter]

Well the first question is 'What are the best biblical texts?' It isn't a simple question. It's not like we can say 'Alexandrinus is the best manuscript we have so we should always follow it' because in places it has mistakes.

I'd say that Nestle-Aland 27 does a pretty good job and I'd probably want to follow it in, say, 98% of cases but there are a few places where I disagree with its editors (and most scholars will disagree with a similar number of things, just different ones).

To an extent bias is also important. Words can carry many different nuances and there is hardly ever an english equivelant which carries the same range of meaning. I have to decide what I think the author is trying to say when he uses a word and then select the english word that matches that most closely. In doing so I introduce my theological bias into my translation. Bias may not be an appropriate word though because the choices aren't normally being made on dogmatic grounds but rather on the basis of the text as a whole.

[Griggsy]

Well the first question is 'What are the best biblical texts?' It isn't a simple question. It's not like we can say 'Alexandrinus is the best manuscript we have so we should always follow it' because in places it has mistakes.

I'd say that Nestle-Aland 27 does a pretty good job and I'd probably want to follow it in, say, 98% of cases but there are a few places where I disagree with its editors (and most scholars will disagree with a similar number of things, just different ones).

To an extent bias is also important. Words can carry many different nuances and there is hardly ever an english equivelant which carries the same range of meaning. I have to decide what I think the author is trying to say when he uses a word and then select the english word that matches that most closely. In doing so I introduce my theological bias into my translation. Bias may not be an appropriate word though because the choices aren't normally being made on dogmatic grounds but rather on the basis of the text as a whole.
How much interpretation is sectarian!