I have started to explain what it is translators of the New Testament actually translate. They do not translate just one manuscript or another; they translate what they take to be the “original” text as it has been reconstructed by textual specialists (some of whom are the translators themselves). These reconstructions can be found in printed editions of the Greek New Testament.
To make sense of what the translators actually have in front of them when they are translating, I need to give a brief history of the printing of the Greek New Testament. To that end I will provide in two or three posts the directly relevant material given in my book Misquoting Jesus. I’ve always thought this is unusually interesting information connected to “how we got our Bible.” I start at the beginning, with the invention of printing.
******************************
The text of the New Testament was copied in a fairly standardized form throughout the centuries of the Middle Ages, both in the East (the “Byzantine” text) and the West (the Latin Vulgate). It was the invention of the printing press in the fifteenth century by Johann Gutenberg (1400-1468) that changed everything for the reproduction of books in general and the books of the Bible in particular. By printing books with moveable print, one could guarantee that every page looked exactly like every other page, with no variations of any kind in the wording. Gone were the days when transcribers would each produce different copies of the same text by means of accidental and intentional alterations. What was set in print, was set in stone. Moreover, books could be made far more rapidly: no longer did they need to be copied one letter at a time. And as a result, they were made much more cheaply. Scarcely anything has made such a revolutionary impact on the modern world as the printing press; the next closest thing (which may, eventually, surpass it in significance) is the advent of the personal computer.
The first major work to be published on Gutenberg’s printing press was a magnificent edition of the Latin (Vulgate) Bible, which took all of 1450-56 to produce. In the half-century that followed, some fifty editions of the Vulgate were produced at various printing houses in Europe. It may seem odd that there was no impulse to produce a copy of the Greek New Testament in these early years of printing. But the reason is not hard to find: scholars throughout Europe – including Biblical scholars – had been accustomed for nearly a thousand years to thinking that Jerome’s Vulgate was the Bible of the church (somewhat like some modern churches assume that the King James is the “true” Bible). The Greek Bible was thought of as foreign to theology and learning; in the Latin West, it was thought of as belonging to the Greek Orthodox Christians, who were considered to be schismatics who had branched off from the true church. Few scholars in Western Europe could even read Greek. And so, at first, no one felt compelled to put the Greek Bible in print.
The first Western scholar who conceived of the idea of producing a version of the Greek New Testament was a Spanish cardinal named Ximenes de Cisneros (1437-1517). Under his leadership, a group of scholars, including one named Diego Loped de Zuñiga (Stunica), undertook a multi-volume edition of the Bible. This was a “polyglot” edition – that is, it printed the text of the Bible in a variety of languages. And so, the Old Testament was represented by the original Hebrew, the Latin Vulgate, and the Greek Septuagint, side by side in columns. (What these editors thought of the superiority of the Vulgate can be seen in their comments on this arrangement in their Preface: they likened it to Christ – represented by the Vulgate – being crucified between two criminals, the false Jews represented by the Hebrew and the schismatic Greeks represented by the Septuagint.)
The work was printed in a town called Alcalà, whose Latin name is “Complutum.” For this reason, Ximenes’s edition is known as the Complutensian Polyglot. The New Testament volume was the first to be printed (vol. 5; completed in 1514); it contained the Greek text, and included a Greek dictionary with Latin equivalents. But there was no plan to publish this volume separately – all six volumes (the sixth included a Hebrew grammar and dictionary, to assist in the reading of vols. 1-4) were to be published together. And this took considerable time. The entire work was finished, evidently, by 1517; but as this was a Catholic production, it needed the sanction of the pope, Leo X, before it could appear. This was finally obtained in 1520, but because of other complications, the book did not come to be distributed until 1522, some five years after Ximenes himself had died.
As we have seen, by this time there were many hundreds of Greek manuscripts (i.e., hand written copies) available to Christian churches and scholars in the East. How did Stunica and his fellow editors decide which of these manuscripts to use, and which manuscripts were actually available to them? Unfortunately, this is a question that scholars have never been able to answer with any confidence. In the Dedication of the work, Ximenes expresses his gratitude to Pope Leo X for Greek copies that he had lent them “from the Apostolical Library.” And so the manuscripts for the edition may have come from the Vatican’s holdings. Some scholars, however, have suspected that manuscripts available locally were used. About 250 years after the production of the Complutum, a Danish scholar named Moldenhawer visited Alcalà to survey their library resources in order to answer the question. But as it turns out, he could find no manuscripts of the Greek New Testament at all. Suspecting that the library must have had some such manuscripts at some point, he made persistent inquiry, until he was finally told by the librarian that the library had indeed previously contained ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but that in 1749 all of them had been sold to a famous rocket maker named Toryo, “as useless parchments” (but suitable for making fireworks).
Later scholars have tried to discredit this account; but at the very least it shows that the study of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is not rocket science.
Is there a point, or a transition, in the Synoptics, especially Mark, between the kingdom of god as the main theme and atonement as the main theme? I’m thinking that maybe it’s Mark Chapter 9 where Jesus (first?) says that he has to die.
Or perhaps atonement is the main theme throughout and the kingdom of god a major sub-theme?
Or maybe it’s that Jesus’s death is necessary for the kingdom to come?
I suppose I’m asking too where the historical Jesus begins to get overlaid in a major way by the Jesus of the gospels.
For Mark the theme of the centrality of Jesus’ death starts very early, already in 2:19-20. Mark appears to be reporting Jesus’ own teachings on the Kingdom while knowing — now after Jesus’ death — that it is the crucifixion/resurrection that will make it possible to enter That creates a contradiction of sorts, since Jesus himself indicates that people can enter by repenting. Mark may not have seen the difference (as many still don’t)
Maybe it’s my Jewish perspective on how to treat the Torah and other religious documents with respect, but I have trouble imagining a Catholic institution selling off old copies of the New Testament to be blown up as fireworks.
Ha!
Was the writer of Luke and acts a female companion of Paul ?
Almost certainly not. THere were very, very few women educated at the level of this author in antiquity. From the first century I don’t believe we have any women authors who produced narrativers. And there would have been proportionally even fewer among the Christians.
Bart, thanks for this post. Very interesting. I have a couple of questions :
1. Insofar as the West is concerned, at what point did “the bible in every house” become a thing ?”
2. Prior to the “Bible in every house” becoming commonplace, how did the average Christian interact with or read the Bible ?
Thank you.
1. Good question. I assume the 19th century, but don’t know. 2. In church.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
When you became a progressive Christian what were your beliefs? (About Jesus’ divinity, salvation, resurrection etc.)
When you discovered that Jesus most likely never claimed to be God, did you lose belief in him as God (but obviously continued to believe in a God until theodicy proved too glaring)?
I see Dale Martin believes in the divinity of Jesus in a “postmodern” sense- recognizing him as divine only spiritually but not historically. Would you happen to know Martin’s other beliefs on soteriology?
Thank you!!
At the time I thought that Jesus revealed the “truth” about the divine realm in a metaphorical sense, that parts of his story (virgin birth, many of the miracles) were “myths,” but that these myths gave insight into the character of God and ultimate reality; I did not think he was God, but that had no bearing (zero bearing!) on whether there was a God. I came to think that salvation was less a matter of heaven and hell than in understanding the world rightly and living in the way God (assuming he had any involvement in the world) wanted me to and being the kind of person I should be. For Martin’s views, you might check out his book Biblical Truths.
Ah, interesting!! Thanks Dr Ehrman!
Since you had a “born again” experience in your youth of “letting Jesus into your heart” how did you come to view that when you stopped believing in his divinity? What made you not want to adopt a kind of postmodern view of a simultaneous Jesus of history not being God and a spiritual Jesus who once touched you? What made you decisively stop seeing Jesus as God?
I did have that view, actually, for a while. I stopped believing Jeus was God in any sense especially when I stopped believing there was a (transcendant) God in any sense.
Are there any early manuscripts containing the first chapter of a gospel without the title “The Gospel According to “? i.e. is there hard manuscript evidence that the gospels originally circulated without any attribution?
The actually don’t have that exact title. The titles are usually, early on, simply “According to Matthew.” These are not even titles (no one who writes a book *calls* the book “according to Fred”) — they are indications of whose accounts these are by scribes who want to explain the differences between book x and book y (this is john’s account; this is mark’s account; and so on). There are no manuscripts without these ascriptions. But we don’t have any manuscripts with them until over a century after the books were copied, so we don’t know how early the ascriptions started. The first time anyone *mentions* them is around 185 CE or so (Irenaeus). Before then authors who quote the Gospels never indicate who wrote them.
So I’m confused or maybe I’m not and don’t know it, I’m reading Jewish daily life in roman Palestine edited by C. Header, and there’s a passage that reads
“because of the quantity and diversity of the written sources and the ever-increasing archaeological evidence, combined with the vast amount of secondary literature relating to rural Jewish life in roman Palestine, scholars to specialize in either late second temple or late antique periods, and in more textual or archaeologically based studies. As a result, very few fully integrated treatments exist that include political, social, economic, religious, and material culture aspects of Jewish village life spanning the first century BCE to the seventh century CE.”
Does this mean that the NT period is paid little attention to?
No, not at all. He is referring to *village* life. There’s almost no written record of what it waswritten in villages, so that most of the socio-economic and religious information we have comes form archarological work. But there are indeed very fine discussions of it — my colleague Jodi Magnesses book Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Dailly life in the Time of Jesus, and Catherine Hezser’s Oxford Handbook on Jewish daily life, etc.
Re: Christos and Chrestos
What is your take on χριστος vs χρηστος in the abbreviations of the earliest manuscripts?
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/03/christos-and-chrestos.html
Note: I’m passing this question along to you, not because I like the question. On the contrary, I find the word Chrestos annoying sometimes when it is used in mythicist arguments. I would like to have a better informed perspective.
I’m afraid I haven’t looked at that for many years and don’t have a strong opinion.
Apologies if this is a bit off-topic but a question re the Septuagint. I’ve heard a Rabbi Tovia Singer claim (in a MythVision podcast) that it is quite a poor translation of the Hebrew – in fact a deliberately Christian-flavoured mistranslation in many places to aid the cause of the early church’s claim for the legitimacy of Jesus from OT tradition. What can you say about this please?
It’s really difficult to talk aboiut “the” Septuagint as if it were one thing done at one time. There were lots of Greek translations of the OT and we talk about the Septuagint simply to, well, simplify things. I don’t see much evidence of deliberate Christian mistranslastions, but would love to know of some! (I don’t think Isa. 7:14 counts) One of the very real problems is that we don’t know which form(s) of the Hebrew text was/were available to the vairous Greek translators, so sometimes what looks like a mistranslation may in fact be an accurate translation of a different Hebrew text.