New Testament Manuscripts Archives - Page 18 of 19 - The Bart Ehrman Blog

Textual Problems with the King James: The Trinity

I’ve mentioned several problems with the King James Version in previous posts. Arguably the most significant set of problems has to do with the text that the translators were translating. Here I’ll stick with what I know the most about, the text of the New Testament. The brief reality is that in the early 17th century, Greek editions of the New Testament were based on very few and highly inferior manuscripts. Only after the King James was translated did scholars begin to become aware of the existence of older, and far better, manuscripts. For those of you who have read Misquoting Jesus, much of what follows will be a brief review. Before the invention of printing, the NT (and all other books) circulated in manuscript form (the word manu-script literally means “written by hand”), as scribes copied the text by hand, one page, one sentence, one word at a time. All scribes copying long texts made mistakes; and anyone who copied a manuscript that had mistakes replicated the mistakes and made some of his own, [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:20:08-04:00January 14th, 2013|New Testament Manuscripts|

More King James Curiosities

A terrific and detailed discussion of some of the problems of the King James as a modern translation can be found in Jack Lewis’s helpful ,The English Bible: from KJV to NIV. Among some of the more interesting points he makes are the following. Words used in the KJV that we have no clue about today (well, most of us): almug, algum, chode gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, lugure, neesed, ring-straked, wimples, ouches, cracknels…. He lists dozens more. Phrases: ouches of gold (Exoc. 28:11); collops of fat (Job 15:25); naughty figs (Jer 24:2); lien with (Jer. 3:2); rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30); murrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2). He gives lots more. Sentences that may, at least, puzzle: And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29) And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18) Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6) Solomon loved many strange women (2 Kings 11:1) (!) I trow not (Luke 17:9) We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1) Ye are not straitened in us, [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:20:07-04:00January 12th, 2013|New Testament Manuscripts|

Misleading Translations in the King James

In a couple of weeks I’m going off to Los Angeles to give a lecture at Loyola Marymount University as a keynote address for their putting on of the (traveling) exhibition on the King James Bible, started in commemoration of its 400th year (in 2011). The exhibition is called Manifold Greatness: The Creation and Afterlife of the King James Bible, and my lecture is entitled: “What Kind of a Text Is the King James Bible? Manuscripts, Translation, and the Legacy of the KJV.” In addition to celebrating the greatness of the translation – it’s obviously one of the greatest classics of the English language – I will be talking about various aspects of the KJV that make it less usable as a study or research Bible. I haven’t written the talk yet, but I’m thinking, at this point, about talking about three topics: The fact that in the New Testament the KJV was based on Greek manuscripts (the only ones available at the time, of course – so it was no one’s fault) that are [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:20:07-04:00January 9th, 2013|Bart’s Biography, New Testament Manuscripts|

Luke’s First Edition

In my previous post, ostensibly on the genealogy of Luke, I pointed out that there are good reasons for thinking that the Gospel originally was published – in a kind of “first edition” – without what are now the first two chapters, so that the very beginning was what is now 3:1 (this is many centuries, of course, before anyone started using chapters and verses.) If that’s the case, Luke was originally a Gospel like Mark’s that did not have a birth and infancy narratives. These were added later, in a second edition (either by the same author or by someone else). If that’s the case then the Gospel began with John the Baptist and his baptism of Jesus, followed by the genealogy which makes better sense here, at the beginning, than it does in the third chapter once the first two are added. But is there any hard evidence that a first edition began without the first two chapters? One of the reasons it is so hard to say is because we simply don’t [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:19:53-04:00December 23rd, 2012|Canonical Gospels, Early Christian Doctrine, History of Christianity (100-300CE), New Testament Manuscripts, Reflections and Ruminations|

My Translation of the NT?

QUESTION: Do you have any plans to publish your own "best" version of the NT in English? From reading several of your books, it does seem as though you probably already have a translation sitting in a drawer somewhere. I have not been able to find scholarly reconstruction that was produced in the last three and a half decades. Most of the newer "translations" are theologically motivated and sound more like modern slang. Have any of your colleagues/ students produced a readable version you would recommend? (Thousands of footnotes do not make for a readable text!) I would very much like to see your translation/interpretation sitting on a bookshelf. RESPONSE: No, as it turns out, I have never written out a full translation of the New Testament. For several reasons. First, there are a number of excellent translations already available that have been done by some of the best NT scholars on the planet. My translation would be different, but not necessarily better. Of course, I would think that where mine differed it would be [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:19:08-04:00October 26th, 2012|Book Discussions, Canonical Gospels, Catholic Epistles, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Why Did Scribes Add the Bloody Sweat?

I have explained why it is almost certain that Luke did not himself write the passage describing Jesus “sweating blood” in Luke 22:43-44: the passage is not found in some of our oldest and best manuscripts, it intrudes in a context that otherwise is structured as a clear chiasmus, and it presents a view of Jesus going to his death precisely at odds with what Luke has produced otherwise. Whereas Luke goes out of his way to portray Jesus as calm and in control in the ace of death – evidently to provide a model to his readers about how they too suffer when they experience persecution – these verses show him in deep anguish to the point of needing heavenly support by an angel, as he sweats great drops as of blood. But if the verses were not originally in Luke, why were they added by scribes? The key to answering the question comes from considering two data. First, when were the verses added to the text? And second, how were they first “used” [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 12th, 2012|Early Christian Doctrine, Heresy and Orthodoxy, History of Christianity (100-300CE), New Testament Manuscripts, Proto-Orthodox Writers, Reader’s Questions|

More on The Bloody Sweat

I mentioned that I first got interested in the textual problem of Luke 22:43-44 (“the bloody sweat”) when I was taking a graduate seminar at Princeton Theological Seminary, my first year in the doctoral program. The seminar was devoted (the entire semester) to the Greek exegesis of Luke. My fellow student, Mark Plunkett, presented a seminar paper in which he dealt with the passage. He was not at all interested in the textual question of whether vv. 43-44 were original. He was assuming that there were not, but it had nothing to do with his presentation. In his presentation he argued that there was a clear structure to the passage of Jesus’ prayer before being arrested (in Luke’s source this takes place in the Garden of Gethsemane, but Luke doesn’t say so) and he made a convincing argument (to my mind). And then I realized that the structural argument was relevant to the textual problem of whether the verses were original or not. While we moved on to other things in the seminar that afternoon, [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 6th, 2012|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with the NRSV (Part 5)

My problems with the NRSV continued - Part 5! Trust me, I eventually get back to the question of my relationship with Bruce Metzger. I keep getting sidetracked, but the tracks on the side are interesting. At least I *think* they are!! In my last post, I pointed out that the famous passage of the so-called “bloody sweat” in Luke 22:43-44 is thought by some scholars not to have been original to the Gospel of Luke. I count myself in that number. Problems with the NRSV - The Bloody Sweat One of my very first scholarly articles was devoted to the question. I wrote it when I was a first-year graduate student – or rather, co-wrote it, with a friend of mine who was in the Ph.D. program at Princeton Seminary with me. A fellow named Mark Plunkett did a study of the passage of Jesus’ prayer before his arrest and realized something about the structure of the passage. In turn, I realized that if he was right, the two verses about the bloody sweat [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 5th, 2012|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with the NRSV (Part 4)
Gallery
Problems with the NRSV (Part 4)

Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions

Problems with the NRSV (Part 4)

My problems with the NRSV - Part 4 of a 5 Part series. I will give just one other textual disagreement that I have with the translators of the NRSV. By “textual” disagreement I mean a disagreement over what the original Greek text of a passage was that should have been translated. For this second example, I’ll stick with Luke, and again with the Passion narrative. Luke & the NRSV The full passage of Jesus’ prayer in the garden in Luke 24:39-46 reads as follows in the NRSV: FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don't belong yet, JOIN!! 39 He came out and went, as was his custom, to the mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him. 40 When he reached the place, he said to them, “Pray that you may not come into the time of trial.” Then he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, knelt down, and prayed, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 4th, 2012|Canonical Gospels, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with the NRSV (Part 3)

My analysis of the problems with the NRSV continues in Part 3! Translators of the Bible have a terrifically complicated, difficult, and usually thankless task. I knew that, of course ever since taking Greek back in college. But I did not relate to the problems emotionally until I started publishing translations of my own. It’s HARD. My first translation project was a two-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (published by Harvard University Press). It was at that point that I realized that what translators do is not at all what the rest of us do who can teach the ancient languages and read Greek and assign Greek translation exercises to classes of graduate students. When you are with a class of students, you can sit around the table, discuss the various options about how a text can be translated, and talk about the pros and cons of various English renditions. Make a few suggestions for how to provide nuance to a rendering. Explicate the fuller meaning of the Greek by [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 3rd, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with the NRSV Bible (Part 2)

My problems in the NSRV Bible are covered in this 5 part series. In my last post, I mentioned John 3:22 as a verse that is mistranslated in the NRSV, leading to problems; but the problems of interpretation are not that enormous there. The translators simply removed an internal inconsistency by the way they mistranslated the verse. This second problem, the subject of this post, is more severe. A mistranslation has completely altered the meaning of a passage; it is the result of a very good motive – to make the translation gender-inclusive. But motive has led to a very bad result in this case. The Problems with the NSRV Bible: Gender The policy of the NRSV Bible was to render gender-neutral statements in a gender-neutral way. If a passage refers to humans in general, then it does not make sense to translate it as referring only to “men” (or only to “women” for that matter). So instead of “man” the translators chose to use “person” or “human” or – if the mortality of people [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:40-04:00September 3rd, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with the NRSV (Part I)
Gallery
Problems with the NRSV (Part I)

History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions

Problems with the NRSV (Part I)

My problems with the NRSV. One of the pleasures and difficulties I am finding with this blog is that it is oh so easy to get sidetracked from my original plan and intention. The current series of posts was originally a response to the question of how Bruce Metzger reacted to my loss of faith. (To anticipate the final answer: I don’t think he had much of a reaction at all!) But instead of dealing with that question directly, I decided to use it as an opportunity to talk about my long-term relationship with Metzger; this has occupied a large number of posts. The most recent of those had to do with my work for/with him on the New Revised Standard Version. In response to those posts, several people have asked me questions about the NRSV, and now I am dealing with/ responding to these. But I promise: I will get back to the original question eventually! Problems with the NRSV On the NRSV, several people have wanted to know if I had problems with [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00September 1st, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Problems with Other Translations

I have indicated that my preferred translation is the NRSV. Everyone, of course, has their favorite. My judgment is that among main-line, serious biblical scholars, the NRSV is far and away the preferred translation. But it is not so among general readers. I believe the King James Bible (the KJV) (or its slight revision: The New King James) and the New International Version (NIV) are better sellers among the population at large. So let me say a few words about these two. (Some readers of this blog will want to write to me to ask what I think of their own preferred translation: the Jerusalem Bible; the New English Version; the New American Standard Bible; etc etc. Most of the time I tell them that it’s fine. It just isn’t the one that I think is the best) First: The King James. Published in 1611, the KJV (or “Authorized Version” as it was called, since it was a translation “authorized” by the head of the Anglican Church – guess who? King James of England), is [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00August 29th, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

My Preferred Bible Translation

A number of people have responded to some of my recent comments by asking what my preferred Bible translation is. I get asked the question a lot – especially since my book Misquoting Jesus, where I talk about the changes scribes made in the manuscripts they copied over the years. A number of readers were alarmed and wondered whether I should let scholars know about these problems. In every case I responded that yes, indeed, scholars – all scholars of the Bible – do know about these problems. Intimately. Inside and out. This is the kind of thing scholars work on. Nothing in the book would have come as a shock to anyone in the field. Most especially to Bible translators, who have to decide which Hebrew and Greek words to translate before even starting to think about how to put them into English. And so, as a result, every modern Bible translator knows about and deals with these problems. But back to the question: which translation do I prefer? It will probably come as [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00August 28th, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Autobiographical. Metzger and Me: More on the NRSV

MORE REFLECTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION ABOUT MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MY MENTOR BRUCE METZGER ***************************************************************************************************************** Two rather humorous stories connected with my work as the administrative assistant for the revision of the Revised Standard Version. In that capacity I was, of course, present for the various deliberations of the committee. Among the many issues they discussed was what to call the new revision. Ultimately it stood in the tradition of the “Authorized Version” – the technical name of the King James Version. In 1881, the KJV underwent an “official” revision (i.e., authorized by the ecclesiastical authorities who owned the copyright) in the Revised Version. Its committee received a lot of flak for the changes it made. Even though it was an English revision, there were several Americans who were on the committee. As part of their terms of involvement, they agreed not to publish and American version of the translation (making changes as they saw fit and bringing spelling and punctuation into conformity with American usage) for 20 years; and so in 1901 was [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00August 26th, 2012|Bart’s Biography, History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

The NRSV Bible Translation Committee (Part 2)

A CONTINUATION OF MY POSTS OF MY RELATIONSHIP WITH BRUCE METZGER I served as one of the secretaries for the NRSV, as explained in my previous post, for a couple of years. It was not onerous work and was quite a privilege to be able to associate with some of the greatest biblical scholars and Semitic philologists of the time. I was, of course, a complete nobody. Some of the members of the committee treated me (and the other secretaries) as complete nobodies (these tended to be the less qualified and more insecure members of the committee; I won’t name names!); others treated me (and the others) in a dignified and respectful way, realizing that we were, after all, just graduate students, but knowing that we were advanced and heading into academic careers of our own. When I graduated from my PhD program I was teaching part time at Rutgers, but I did not have a full time, tenure-track position there. It was a slightly oppressive situation, as adjunct positions at universities typically are. I’ll [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00August 23rd, 2012|Bart’s Biography, History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Autobiographical. Metzger and Me. The NRSV Bible Translation Committee

A CONTINUATION OF MY RECOLLECTIONS OF BRUCE METZGER, MY MENTOR. When I was still a graduate student in the PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary, Metzger invited me to serve as a secretary for the committee that was producing the new revision of the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible. The RSV (on which the new translation was to be based) had come out in 1952, and it had caused a huge furor at the time. It was an “official” revision of the King James Bible, that was supposed to update the language (English has changed a lot since 1611), to take into consideration new manuscript discoveries (especially important for the New Testament, since the KJV was based on only a few medieval manuscripts that were not of very high quality; hundreds of better ones had since been discovered, and to incorporate the findings of modern Biblical scholarship). The RSV of 1952 was an “official” translation because it was authorized by the National Council of Churches in the U.S. But in the opinion of [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:39-04:00August 21st, 2012|Bart’s Biography, History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Ancient Secretaries (Part 2)

This is a continuation of my previous post on secretaries in the ancient world, drawn from my forthcoming book Forgery and Counterforgery. In the earlier post I talked about the use of secretaries in taking dictation and doing light copy-editing, based on the findings of the full study of Randall Richards. The discussion is relevant to the writings of the New Testament: could 1 Peter, or Ephesians, or any of the other pseudepigraphical writings of the new testament have been produced by secretaries rather than their reputed authors? ****************************** It is Richards‘ third and fourth categories that are particularly germane to the questions of early Christian forgery. What is the evidence that secretaries were widely used, or used at all, as co-authors of letters or as Ersatz composers? If there is any evidence that secretaries sometimes joined an author in creating a letter, Richards has failed to find or produce it. The one example he considers involves the relationship of Cicero and Tiro, cited earlier by Gordon Bahr as evidence for co-authorship. In Bahr’s words [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:23-04:00August 5th, 2012|Book Discussions, Forgery in Antiquity, New Testament Manuscripts|

Ancient Secretaries (Part 1)

I have received some comments and emails about my claims about Silvanus as a secretary (or rather, NOT as a secretary) for the book of 1 Peter, and realized it would help if I could give some more detail about what we know about secretaries in the ancient world. The following is from an excursus in my forthcoming Forgery and Counterforgery; it will come in two parts, the first today and the second, hopefully, tomorrow. If you've read my book Forged, the substance of what follows will be familiar; this is the slightly more whomped up version of what I discuss there. ************************************************************************************************************************ Now that we have explored six of the Deutero-Pauline epistles, we are in a position to consider the hypothesis widely invoked by advocates of authenticity to explain how a letter allegedly by an author should differ so radically from other writings he produced. The notion that early Christian authors used secretaries who altered the writing style and contributed to the contents of a writing– thereby creating the anomalies that arouse the critics‘ [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:23-04:00August 3rd, 2012|Book Discussions, Forgery in Antiquity, Greco-Roman Religions and Culture, New Testament Manuscripts, Paul and His Letters|

Some Questions on the Greek

I'M FIRMLY ENSCONCED IN LONDON NOW (JUST SAW A BRILLIANT "WINTER'S TALE" WITH SARAH, MY SHAKESPEARE SCHOLAR WIFE WHO IS TEACHING A DUKE IN LONDON THEATER PROGRAM THIS SUMMER). I'M SERIOUSLY JET-LAGGED, BUT NOT SO JET-LAGGED AS TO AVOID MY BELOVED BLOG! HERE'S ONE I'VE BEEN SAVING UP FOR A RAINY DAY. IN LONDON, IT'S *ALWAYS* A RAINY DAY..... QUESTION: I am curious as to what role paleography has had in dating various manuscripts from early Christian writings. As I am aware, the canonical scriptures of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek. Were there any writing style changes over the period of the composition of these works or subtle changes in the Koine dialect to assign them into known date ranges? Can scribal copies be detected this way or were most or all copied true to the original? Lastly are you aware of other languages used to compose original, non-canonical works from the earliest Christian writings? RESPONSE: There are actually four questions here, although that may not be obvious. I’ll answer them [...]

BDEhrman2025-09-10T12:18:09-04:00July 18th, 2012|History of Biblical Scholarship, New Testament Manuscripts, Reader’s Questions|

Previous 1···171819 Next