Loading...In my previous post I indicated that the King James Version includes verses in some places that are almost certainly not “original” – that is, passages that were not written by the original authors but were added by later scribes. I chose three of the most outstanding and famous examples: the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7-8; the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11; and Jesus’ resurrection appearance in the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel, Mark 16:9-20.
What about more recent translations? how are these three passages presented there? I won’t discuss all the translations here, of course (the 29 million of them) but the one that I and most other historical scholars I know, prefer, the New Revised Standard Version, recently updated in the NRSVue (= updated edition. Catchy, huh?). Since virtually all scholars (including the translators of this edition) agree these three passages were not original to the New Testament, are they printed there?
As it turns out, the three passages are handled differently. The first, which affirms the doctrine of the Trinity (1 John 5:7-8), is not
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
And so how does the NRSV (and the ue) present the text at this point? It leaves the verses out, but adds a footnote (no one reads the footnotes, but it’s there anyway) which says “A few other authorities read (with variations) There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”
Why does the note say that the verses are found in other “authorities” instead of in other “manuscripts”? This is the standard way of referring to textual variants in the notes of the NRSV. The reason behind it is this: the translators are considering not only variant readings found in Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but also variant readings as they occur in ancient translations (the “early versions”) of the New Testament, in such ancient languages as Latin, Syriac, and Coptic. Some variant readings are strongly attested in these translations, and the editors of the NRSV thought it was most prudent then not to confuse things by saying that the “authorities” were always (Greek) manuscripts. So they simply called them authorities.
I think it is rather unfortunate that the footnote does not make a stronger statement than it does. The editors thought that by saying the verse was found in (only) “a few other” authorities, they had made their point, that the verses are certainly not original. But I think they could have helped readers out a bit more by making the point more emphatic.
They handle the other two passages differently, and in a way that can be (far) more confusing. They have actually kept the passage of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11, printing it in the text. But they put it in double brackets [[ … ]]. That is to be an indication to the reader that the passage can be found in some ancient witnesses but that it almost certainly is not original to the Gospel of John. They add a footnote at the end of the passage that says “The most ancient authorities lack 7:53-811; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.”
The editors think they have done their job by handling the passage in this way. Surely readers will know the score, no? Surely they’ll realize that the passage is not original. Right?
My sense is that most readers never notice the double brackets, and if they do notice the brackets, they don’t have any idea what they mean. And the vast majority of readers will not bother to try to find out, for example, by reading the Preface to the NRSV to see if it says anything about them. It does say something about them, as it turns out, but the comment is not easy to find unless you read through the entire Preface, which few people are willing or eager to do.
Hidden away in that Preface (really: unless you read the whole thing you won’t find it), the reader is told “double brackets are used to enclose a few passages that are generally regarded to be later additions to the text, but that we have retained because of their evident antiquity and their importance in the textual tradition.” Again, I don’t think this is nearly strong enough. Why not just tell readers that the passage is almost certainly not original but was added by scribes?
There’s actually an answer to the question. It’s because the translators did not want to offend the religious sensibilities of their readers (wanting individuals and churches to adopt their translation, for example!) and because some of the translators (including my teacher Bruce Metzger, the chair of the committee who wrote the Preface) thought that even though this story was not originally found in the Gospel of John, it undoubtedly actually happened in the life of Jesus.
The ending of Mark (16:9-20) is handled in an analogous way. Here the matter is a bit complicated by the fact that some manuscripts have a *different* ending that was tacked on to v. 9 (consisting of a single verse); some manuscripts have the longer ending – the twelve last verses known from the King James (vv. 9-20); and some have *both* of these endings (the one verse and the twelve verses). The oldest and best manuscripts, though, end with v. 8.
The NRSV prints the shorter additional ending (of one verse) then the longer additional ending (of twelve verses) but places both endings in double brackets. The note explaining the messy situation again does not strike me as completely satisfactory: “Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8…..” It goes on to explain the two additions found in some manuscripts.
Again, I think a stronger statement would be in order. They should just say that neither of these other endings is at all likely to be original, but that both were tacked on by scribes. Readers simply don’t see double brackets and then think: “Oh, so this isn’t original.” If they see the brackets at all – and often they don’t even see them – they ask “Hmm… I wonder what brackets mean.” And go no further than that. And the note really doesn’t tell them what they want to know.
So the NRSV is superior in all these passages to the KJV. But in my judgement it’s not as helpful as it could be.
“Why not just tell readers that the passage is almost certainly not original but was added by scribes?”
Can we quantify “almost certainly”? If a passage is only found in later extant manuscripts, should we conclude with 100% metaphysical certainty that, to put it bluntly, it’s a lie? Or is the probability of outright falsehood somewhere around 50%, 75% or 90% due to the fact that many manuscripts likely existed that were long ago lost to time?
I don’t know anyone who would called it a lie or a falsehood. And “almost certainly” is most definitely not 100%!
I get that funding a translation of something like the Bible is super expensive and doesn’t make sense unless there is ROI which requires them to create something that people will be willing to buy … I’m wondering if the watering down of a translation caused by what are essentially market forces mighty be circumvented by creating an online only translation?
No printing houses, no type setting, fewer of the expenses (but I’d imagine there will still be massive expenses because expertise isn’t cheap nor should it be) and hyperlinking can enable a critical apparatus that would consist of manuscript database references, links to recently scanned actual manuscripts … Way more awesome and useful information than can fit on any printed page.
I think there have been a few attempts at something like this structurally but they seem to rely on pre-existing translations …
The other issue is making sure people read your translation. Leave out some of their favorite parts and … probably not!
Dr. Ehrman, in your opinion why did Bruce Metzger believe the passage of the woman caught in adultery “actually happened in the life of Jesus”? Thanks.
My personal opinion is that it is because he grew up with the passage, found it beautiful and important, and had always thought that it’s the sort of thing Jesus would do.
Blessed is the ” scribe” who came up with the woman taken in adultery stunning story.
Here we find an author of antiquity (the scribe perhaps only transcribed a story heard or dictated to him) who absorbed the core of Jesus’ worldview in one single tale of ethical genius and unique humanism: compassion,forgiveness, self-examination, judgment,law,the profound morality and originality of those “free of sin” casting the first stone”,an early Christian with a supreme understanding of what it’s all about,and how a new society can be created by changing our minds.
Such inventing Christian,if not Jesus,would have been a towering moral mind we might have heard of.
Why do we reach the conclusion that this episode never happened,that Jesus never said these words,that someone else had Jesus’ master- teacher stature and character,all on the basis of a late entry?
How does a late entry definitely signify a lack of authenticity?
I find myself agreeing with Metzger.But I’m sure there’s much that I don’t know.
I do agree of course that the reader has a right to a much better explanation.But still,such improved footnotes or preface would not be complete without a short note alluding to the suspected inauthenticity of the story,and if possible,
why. Or would this be commercial suicide?
There actually are good reasons for thinking it didn’t happen. I suppose three rather important ones are (a) that the historical Jesus was completely unknown to the Jerusalem establishment — he was a rural, uneducated, apocalyptic preacher like dozens of others, not someone who had a wide following, let alone in Jeruslem. Historically, he probably had never even gone there before his final week. And (2) Jewish authorities did not have the power to inflict capital punishment under Roman rule, so they could not have seriously envisioned stoning an adulteress; and (3) If they were inclined to thumb their nose at the ruling authorities in this particular case (not others??), they certainly would not submit their judgment/yield their authority to an itinerate preacher from some other place. The whole thing is completely implausible if thought about historically, rather than with the later assumption that Jesus was a major player in the social-cultural-political scene of 1st century Israel.
Thanks for such a detailed reply!
So interesting.
I was under the impression that from chapter 7’s beginning there was a wide awareness of Jesus in Jerusalem.They had heard lots of stories about him; enough to want him gone.
Jesus had not wanted to go to Jerusalem on that Booths festival.He knew they wanted him dead.But his time had not yet come,he said.
The disciples went,but Jesus returned to the Galilee. Nevertheless,he did go to Jerusalem subsequently.
The point that the accusers allegedly didn’t have authority to exact a death penalty is very convincing,and if this was the case, then Jesus also knew it.
And he therefore knew they were not going to stone anyone,they were bluffing. The inquiry was hypothetical.
I also assume the guy the woman had committed adultery with would have been there,yet wasn’t.
.And no stoning would have occurred within the Temple’s walls.
Jesus felt secure enough to proffer a bold retort.This was a dare, a game.
Arguing was -and is-a most cherished pass- time amongst Jews.
The accusers and the onlookers left maybe not because they had forsworn stoning following Jesus’ pronouncement, not because their consciences had kicked in, but because the stoning “show ” wasn’t going to happen anyway,
Yes, in John’s Gospel Jesus does go to Jerusalem several times. I was referring to what *historically* happened or might have happened (the other Gospels have him going only in the last week, and I think that’s most probably right). In the tenor of the story, it does look like these people really were going to stone her. Otherwise Jesus would simply have said — You *can’t* stone her, adn you know it!
Thanks again!
Still confused:
They couldn’t stone her, legally.Like they couldn’t stone Jesus.
(imagine Christianity without the cross.Indeed at first Christians had other symbols).
Shouldn’t we therefore assume they were not about to stone her?
There is no reference to them having stones,in contrast with the ” I am” episode,where one could similarly object.
And yet, there is Stephen, probably a mob execution,an internal affair that would not have interested the Procurator.
It says in John that they just wanted to entrap Jesus,whom they appeared to have heard about.The other attempted entrapment (“give to Caesar…”) seems similar.
The Pharisees are (quite stupidly)asking for Jesus’ own midrash about what should be done according to Mosaic Law. There’s only one correct answer:she should be stoned.The reality of occupation would not change what should be done according to the Law.Whether they could or couldn’t stone her under the arbitrary, illegal condition of
Roman occupation would not have changed their religious obligation.
Or endless debate about it!
To the point that twice they rebelled disastrously against the Romans.
I read that the story may have been there from very early times,and the church may have suppressed it fearing consequently loose morals.Women could feel Jesus was soft on adultery.Later it was reintroduced.
I think the problem is that if we imagine it as a *historical* account instead of a *story* then we have to interpret it differently. Historically they wouldn’t be able to stone her, so their question would mean something different from it would mean in teh context of a story where they apparently could. Many, many early Christian authors knew almost nothing about Jewish law and procedures, let alone in Israel in teh 20s CE; this account may well have been first written a couple of hundred years later and almost certainly by a gentile author who had never been to Israel in his own day, let alone who had reaad Jewish legal texts. (Jewish law indicates that a man who gathers firewood on teh Sabbath ought to be stoned; the fact that they story is about a *woman* taken in *adultery* is itself significant…)
“(a) the historical Jesus was completely unknown to the Jerusalem establishment”. A probable inference from the Gospel of Mark, perhaps Bart. This story, however, is not presently found in Mark but in John; and in this gospel, Jesus is continually the object of attention from the Jerusalem establishment. You might well maintain otherwise that Mark is more historical – but that rather begs the question.
“(2) Jewish authorities did not have the power to inflict capital punishment under Roman rule, so they could not have seriously envisioned stoning an adulteress” Stoning was not. strictly, capital puninshment effected by court authorities; but a sanctioned act of lynching; approved by court procedures but effected by the witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 17: 2-7). Maybe too nice a distiction for Roman authorities to bother with; but the Romans would scarcely be troubled whether an accused adulteress was killed or not.
“(3) … they certainly would not submit their judgment/yield their authority to an itinerate preacher from some other place.” All four Gospels present a Jesus who carries support from ‘the crowd’ sufficient to constrain the authorities from acting as they might choose.
I have an edition of the NASB that I like because it has good margin notes about questionable passages, notes alternative translations for difficult phrases, or gives the literal Greek or Hebrew when some translation is necessary to make sense in modern English. But of course you have to read the notes! I also have a parallel Gospels book with good footnotes about variations and their sources/manuscripts. But you have to be motivated to read the details; i guess it’s easier just to read the traditional versions “authorized” by your church!
Okay, I’m confused. Regarding “Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8…..”, am I to read that as saying that more of the most ancient authorities _do_ continue past verse 8? I thought your position was that _none_ of the oldest and best manuscripts continued past verse 8.
It depends how you define “most ancient”. If ancient means manuscripts from the fourth to the twelfth centuries, then the “most ancient” would be the oldest of that lot, and the others would have it. If by “ancient” you meant from the fourth century, there are only a couple and they don’t have it.
Is there a scholarly reason that Bruce Metzger believed that the story of John 7:53-8:11 “undoubtedly actually happened in the life of Jesus”? Or do you get the sense that it was mainly a theological commitment?
I never heard him develop a scholarly argument about it, no. It struck him as the kind of thing Jesus would do.
Doesnt the NRSVue translation of John 8.12
“Again Jesus spoke to them saying …”
leave out the greek word ‘oun’ (therefore). And isnt this left untranslated because it doesnt make sense with the PA expunged?
The same word does get translated in John 8.13 because here it does make sense when following 8.12.
OUN is one of those words that provide transitions in narratives; it is not a strong THEREFORE (cogito ergo sum kind of thing). It is not always translated, depending on how well the English flows with or without it.. The more striking thing is that in OUN is very common in John’s narrative — e.g. in John 7:25, 30, 40, 45. But once you hit 7:53-8:11, it doesn’t occur. Instead it is DE, DE, DE, DE, DE, DE — which hardly ever gets used by John this way and to this extent anywhere. The OUN picks up again in 8:12, 13, 19, 21, etc. That’s a good argument that 7:53-8:11 came from a different hand.
There is one OUN in the PA and the rest of ch7 and 8 have lots of DE!
And all the OUNs of ch 7 and 8 indicate a direct following on from the previous verse.
Isn’t the fact that John 8:12 has PALIN OUN AUTOIS (again then to them … ) a very strong indication that the action of 8:12 is supposed to be a direct continuation of the preceding verses and the “AUTOIS” is supposed to be known from the context?
It’s a strong indication that 8:12 is continuing the narrative yes; but it doesn’t make much sense after 8:11.
But John 8:12 would make absolutely no sense as a direct follow on from John 7:52 right?
why?
Because 7:52 is a scene without Jesus where the pharisees chastise the guards for not arresting Jesus and bringing him back with them.
Without the PA we read the pharisees speaking to Nicodemus in the absence of Jesus,
“aren’t you from Galilee also, look into it and see that a prophet is not raised out of Galilee, again therefore Jesus said to them I am the light of the world whoever follows me .. then the Pharisees said to him you are witnessing for yourself …”
Isn’t there a clear jarring of the narrative here? Isn’t there a strong indication that a piece of the original text between 7:52 and 8:12 has been excised? and isn’t that why the NIV uses an unjustified translation of 8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people …”
It’s a bit more jarring when Jesus speaks to “them” in 8:12 when we’ve explicitly been told that “they” had already left in v. 9.
But, let’s just agree we’re not going to convince the other. If you want to read full arguments and are really interested in knowing the full line of evidence, try a historical commentary, such as Raymond Brown’s. Even most evangelicals agree the passage can’t be original. Maybe Dan Wallace has something on it? IN any event, let’s move on to other topics here on the blog.
Offbeat question. The Greek work ekklesia is used by Jesus in Matthew in a couple of instances. Do critical scholars (or majority) actually attribute these sayings to the historical Jesus? Or were these maybe sayings later attributed after the church was established.
Historical scholars almost always see these as sayings as placed on his lips by later story tellers in (alleged) anticipation of the “church.”
My particular fundamentalist denomination, I think, tried to sidestep the issue of “ecclesia” by saying it just means congregation and doesn’t indicate any later date. Do you have any insight?
I tried searching a bit but was unable to fond anything satisfying on the matter
I guess the qeustion, in the context of Matthew’s Gospel, would be “congregation of *what*?”
The English word “dragon.” Conjures usually if not exclusively an image of a huge fire breathing winged reptile (my fav: that depicted in “The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad” [1958] featuring Big Crosby’s second wife).
“Dragon” appears as such in English in Greek (and I’m confident other) myth and in both the Hebrew Bible and the NT, particularly in Revelation.
My question: Does the Greek in the most reliable ancient NT witnesses really correspond to the English “dragon?” If not, what did, say, John of Patmos have “in mind?”
OOOPS BING
In Rev. 12:9 it is actually a cognate word to teh English: Greek DRAKON.
Long ago you asked for examples of deficiencies of the search engine. So, today I wanted to copy (just) the above dragon exchange for a friend (we had been discussing Fafner in Wagner’s ‘Ring’ cycle).
So: I entered a. dragon b. Revelation 12 c. my user name and then a few fragments of same d. Sinbad e. Crosby f. DRAKON
My user name/fragments of same retrieved nothing (years ago, I could retrieve articles containing my comments thus). Ditto for Sinbad, Crosby and DRAKON.
‘Dragon’ and ‘Revelation 12’ each hit about 6 previous articles. The most recent ‘dragon’ hit was that of April ’22. But not this article. Maybe the search engine doesn’t include comments? If so, a change from years ago.
Merely an FYI. Thanks.
Ah, I’m not sure exactly how your were doing a search. When I simply click the magnifying glass in the upper right corenr of the screen once I’m on the blog, and enter “dragon” I get 17 posts? Are you on the blog when you’re doing the search?
Professor Ehrman,
I realize this is unrelated…however, if somebody *really* did stumble upon a manuscript that could be dated back to the first century, say of one of Paul’s letters or The Gospel of Mark, and it *seemed* like maybe it was the actual autograph (I know, highly unlikely, but stay with me here) how on earth would we ever know it *was* in fact the original writing?
I ask the question because a friend of mine raised the issue not long ago and my contention to him is that scholars would have no real way of even knowing what they had stumbled upon if somebody did happen to find the original manuscript of a NT writing.
Is my thinking off base here or is my contention correct in your assessment?
We wouldn’t! I’ve posted on that before. See: https://ehrmanblog.org/how-would-we-know-if-we-found-an-original-manuscript/
Thanks Bart for pointing out how modern translations skate around the issue of how these variants – not that many, but comprising substantial text – are presented to readers; when the editors are confident they did not form part of the original gospels. One factor that may inhibit a forthright dismissal of some of these texts as spurious – specifically the story of the adulteress, and the ending of Mark – is that both of these passages have firm patristic citations from the 2nd century; even though neither was generally ‘successful’ in being accepted into these specific gospels until the 4th/5th century. Nor are their fates linked, e.g. the Ethiopic gospels (4th century), which have the ending of Mark, but not the adulteress.
So it isn’t really enough to say that they were ‘inserted by a scribe’; clearly they had been recorded, and were widely valued, for several centuries before being commonly accepted into Greek gospels. This is a point made repeatedly by the late Larry Hurtado; that while these are commonly recognised in scholarship as additons; there is no commonly recognised narrative of how they eventually ‘succeeded’.
I don’t agree that these have firm patristic citations from teh second century — far from it. Have you seen my article Jesus and the Adulteress? No need to agree with my conclusions, but I cite all the data there and try to explain them. (The first to give a bona fide summary of the PA is Didymus the Blind at the end of the fourth century; and even that account — this is the point of my article — is problematic because it’s not clear he’s referring to our passage per se). I don’t think saying that they were “inserted by a scribe” is a weak statement; a scribe inserted them precisely because they were known accounts. It is indeed a question about why they succeeded; but that question doesn’t have much bearing on whether a scribe inserted them or not. As to them being widely valued for centuries before begin inserted, I’d say that that is precisely what we don’t have any evidence for.
Yes. I have seen your article Bart; though am not convinced that we can infer two distinct ‘sinful woman’ stories circulating independently (neither of which correspond to known narratives in the critical text of the four gospels); one in Papias/Didascalia, the other in Didymus. It might help if we could assume that Didymus is quoting the *whole* text as he knows it; but we can’t.
My view is that scribes copied what they were told to copy (and paid to copy); based on a source text marked-up with corrections from whoever commissioned it. Quite often this copying resulted in words or phrases being mistakenly dropped (as the scribe skipped them). Otherwise – though less frequently – scribes might mistakenly add words or phrases; e.g by misreading an existing marginal reference as an intended correction. After initial copying, the copytext would be checked against the source (and sometimes other manuscripts too). And would pick up further corrections in use; some of which might be maintained in marking-up the next time round.
But adding a passage the length of the ‘sinful woman’ story can only have been a deliberate choice by a commissioner.
Yes, that’s usually how it happened, at least in later times. Would that we knew how it worked earlier. It has to be inferred, manuscript by manuscript, and there were no standard practices. Do you know Kim Haines-Eitzen’s book Guardians of Letters? Up your alley I should think.disabledupes{0ffcd3a4125a3e7e902bfff761550f8b}disabledupes
“and Jesus’ resurrection appearance in the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel, Mark 16:9-20.”
we have in marks time jesus prophecy being fulfilled about peters denial of jesus. the last thing peter does is deny and forsake jesus. mark shows prophecy being fulfilled,but he never tells his readers that the prophecy in 14:28 was fulfilled. so is the reader of mark meant to imagine that it was fulfilled or is the reader of mark meant to take away from the story that peter rejected jesus’ death and ressurection?
quote:
He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”[a] 30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.
peter is thinking that jesus is the messiah who is not supposed to get crucified.
. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
1. peter denies and forsakes jesus. peter rebukes jesus.
conclusion: i think peter was not a promoter of a dying and risin g messiah.
You might find this amusing, or at least interesting! I am a member of a UCC congregation, a pretty liberal denomination. Yesterday was a memorial service for the pastor’s wife, who died of Parkinson’s. A UCC minister, long time friend of our pastor, gave a homily that focused on Mark Ch 16. He pointed out the gap between v 8 and v 9 and said that it took the church 300 years to fill that gap! I can’t quote all that he said, but it was focused on the idea that we need to fill the gap by celebrating the life of the deceased person. Or some such. The interesting thing, of course, is that a pastor deliberately called attention to one of those places where the traditional text has late additions, and then using that fact as a central point of what he had to say.
Interesting. Nice transition and use of scholarship. You won’t hear that sermon in most Southern Baptist churches! (Except I myself knew about the gap and accepted it even as a fundamentalist)
9[b][Now Jesus, having risen [from death] early on the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10She went and reported it to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that He was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe it.
Dr Ehrman , What are your thoughts on Matthew 28: 19 are there any textual variants on that or is it to the best of scholarship knowledge original ?
No variants — it’s in all the manuscripts and is almost certainly original
great to know! thank you!…. I don’t have any footnotes in any of the translations that I use next to that verse indicating such either,…i’ve been looking at the Scriptures with fresh eyes in light of the Trinitarian dogma… and it seems to me just by listening to preachers and other Bible readers, that this is strong proof of the Trinity because the baptism is in the singular name of the three.. it doesn’t seem like we have any evidence of this practice at least not in our cannon… . I believe there’s a better way to read this other than a Trinitarian reading I just and it figured it out yet🤔