Loading...Here is one of the most frequently questions I have received over the years; I addressed it exactly seven years ago on the blog, as I have just discovered while rummaging through the archives. And since it continually comes up, I thought it would be a good time to address it again. Here’s what I said then (and what I still think now!).
********************************************************************************
QUESTION:
Dr. Ehrman, most of your readers doe not know the ancient languages thatthe Bible was written in and therefore must rely on translations. Clearly no one translation is conclusive, but for clarity of reading and reliable research, can you recommend some translations to us? Conversely, do you have any that readers should avoid, because of clear bias or a little too loose?
RESPONSE:
When I published Misquoting Jesus (2005) I received a lot of emails from a lot of people asking a lot of questions. But the one question I got asked more than any other was this one (in various forms): which translation of the Bible do I recommend? I should have answered it in the book itself; it would have made my life oh so much easier.
There are lots and lots of good translations that are available today. The first thing to stress about them is that just about every one of them (just about! I’m sure there are exceptions, although offhand I can’t think of any) has been done by bona fide scholars who know perfectly well everything that I set out for a general reader in Misquoting Jesus. In other words, the fact that we don’t have the original manuscripts but only later copies that were changed in many, many places is not news to Bible translators. It is precisely one of the things they have to deal with, constantly, in their work. I stress this because some of my readers have thought that what I explained in the book was “news” and that someone should tell the Bible translators!
There are several views of what a translation should be. In rough terms, some translators think…
To see the rest of this post you will need to belong to the blog. Membership fees are low, and every penny goes to charity. Joining gives you access to thousands of archived blogs and many thousands of comments and responses. So why not join?
Professor Ehrman, in you opinion, is it possible & feasible to learn biblical Greek & Hebrew independent from university study? There are no universities near me that have language classes in biblical (Koine) Greek or Hebrew. Due to family & financial obligations, I cannot relocate. There are many books available on Amazon… What are the best ones to start with?
I’m afraid I don’t know. There are probalby online help groups that could make suggestions and guide you through it. I would suggest starting with just one and learning it well; definitely don’t try two at once. And definitely get an expert or more to guide you. I’ve never met someone self-taught in either language who actually understood it (though I’ve met several who *thought* they did!)
Learn New Testament Greek by John H. Dobson. Baker Academic 2014.
The ISBN is 9780801017261.
This is the book which I am thoroughly enjoying using. I am still very much struggling but at least I am able to read passages from my Greek NT. I find verb tenses particularly hard going. However I feel that each lesson is very well structured and the vocabulary is systematically introduced to enable me to work through the translation exercises. These in turn then lead in to the suggested Bible text.
Isn’t “the Revelation of St John” written in very poor Greek? Would be amusing to have a translation that tried to reproduce the sense of someone who doesn’t know the language very well writing it. Maybe just run it through Google Translate… 🙂
Yes, there are actual translations errors. Or maybe I should say there are error.
Obviously we all have our personal preferences on which Bible we like to use. My personal preference is the Common English Bible. In your opinion is this a good translation or should I switch to the NRSV? Thanks.
I’m afraid I’ve never given it a careful analysis.
An old friend was guest speaking at a conservative church and after his first sermon was admonished by the elders to “stick to the King James Version” when reading scripture. So his next sermon he opened up his Nestle-Aland Greek text, read the Greek and translated on the fly into English. I LOLed.
Very good. Not much more I can say. I agree.
With regard to you new book project about Christians taking on the Old Testament as their Bible, you might consider writing a later chapter in the book about when and why many Christians began interpreting the Old Testament literally.
Interesting idea. I suppose the problem is that they probably took it literally at the very outset! (Only to change later. But that too is interesting)
Hi Dr. Ehrman- On a related topic to this post: Members have previously asked if you ever plan to do a NT translation yourself, and you have very tactfully indicated that the answer is “no,” and that there are several good translations out there already.
But, I think (many) readers (myself included) are asking/hoping to see a full rendition of, say, Mark, based on your scholarly analysis of what probably was and was not in the original. Alternatively, where could we find a “New Testament” that comes close to including what you (Bart) think IS original, and omits what IS NOT? Simply stated, a “Bart’s Book” like that would be fascinating…but I realize there would likely be fairly complicated professional considerations to such a publication. Thanks for what you do!
Ha! Fair enough. But really, it wouldn’t differ *that* much from the NRSV or other good translations…..
Speaking of translations, it looks like the Pope made it official today. For Catholics, anyway, there is a new version of the Lord’s Prayer. “Lead us not into temptation” is now “Do not let us fall into temptation.” I think you have commented on this before but perhaps you can chime in again. My feeling is, I get it. Sort of. It does make sense that God wouldn’t lead us into temptation. That’s the devil’s job. But, on the other hand, that’s not what the original Greek says, is it? And I can also ask, why? Was there this huge outpouring of opinion that The Lord’s Prayer was somehow faulty? Also, should we not then update some other problematic words in the Bible (that would be a long list, indeed)? In the end, I find it a stretch that many Christians will change the way they speak the words to The Lord’s Prayer no matter what the Pope says.
It does indeed make good sense theologically, and it is indeed not a good translation of the Greek! So it just depends which you prefer.
Do you consider the Lord’s Prayer to be original to Jesus or an addition by adherents or evangelists?
Matthew and Luke report it in different forms (Luke’s version is much shorter). But yes, I tend to think something like it was said by Jesus.
Speaking of the Paternoster, I recently became aware of a translation problem with the “daily” in “daily bread.” Apparently the Greek is an otherwise unattested word, ἐπιούσιον, which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “daily.”
Would you care to give us some thoughts on what ἐπιούσιον might mean in the context, i.e., what Q (presumably) intended it to signify?
Wow — that would be a hard post! It’s a very debated term, and has been since the early church. I’ll think about it.
Dr Ehrman
how do the NSRV relates with: the masoretic texts or the septuagint?
How do major christians denominations accept or reject it (catholics, evangelicals, orthodox, jehovah witnesses)?
It is a translation of the Masoretic Texts. And yes, it is the “official” translation supported by the National Council of Churches.
I have some friends who Jehova’s Witnesses and they have their own translation. I think it’s called the New World Bible, but I could be wrong on that. They used to take a very literal approach – which made the text damn near unreadable – but the latest edition strives for a less literal translation. And they have their own theological prejudices baked in. For instance, they are adamant that Jesus was *not* crucified, but hung on a pole.
I’d love to hear anything you might have to say about David Bentley Hart’s recent translation of the New Testament. I assume it doesn’t displace the NRSV as your preferred version, but does it come anywhere close? Is it in any way preferable to the NRSV? Do its quirks put it beyond the pale?
It’s brilliant in places and quirky in more! But fun to read.
Dr. Ehrman, I know this is a crazy question, and perhaps a little out of order here, but I have to ask it. Would the Gospels be historically reliability if you could reconcile the discrepancies and miracles? Your comment about the NIV translators covering up discrepancies has me wondering.
When I say miracles, I mean anything that may be considered mythical, legendary, etc.
The best way to answer the question is to ask it more broadly. If a book has no internal contradictions and does not claim miracles happened, is that book necessarily historically accurate? Think of other books about other historical figures/movements (say, books about Caesar Augustus; Abraham Lincoln; Barack Obama)
Dr. Ehrman, I don’t mean to waste time and space but I just want to add, I’m probably older than most who post here on this forum and I can’t tell you how appreciative I am that you’ve given us the opportunity, in this modern internet age, to communicate with people who are up to date in the world of scholarship. Not too many years ago, some would have given anything for such a privilege. Today, you offer it for very little.
As a professor of mine used to say, “I’d rather be inconsistently right than consistently wrong”.
What is your opinion when classicists who have the Greek but are not NT scholars have a go at it? I’m thinking of folks like E. V. Rieu and Richard Lattimore.
thanks
I think in most instances their translations are very interesting, but possibly not as well informed about some of the critical issues pertaining specifically to the New Testament.
Thanks for including these Blasts from the Past. I’m never going to get through everything you’ve written in this Blog, especially considering the stack of books on my desk awaiting reading, some of them yours. And now the lawn needs mowing again, darn it! So, these “gems” from years ago are very much appreciated.
1. As far as I can see, most people are fascinated by the differences in translations. Is this your experience? If so, have you thought about a book that talks about many of the different translations and gives specific examples to demonstrate the points you make about them? From what I can tell, it would be a best seller. In fact, I know many church leaders that would use such a book as a bible study.
2. For here or readers mailbag: why do I never hear much about the difficulties in translating the Hebrew bible? There is so much information on textual variations in the NT. Surely we have the same with the HB.
1. There are certainly books like that, which can be very interesting. Most of them have titles like The History of Bible Translation. 2. I don’t know. The problems are even more severe — much more severe — there.
I’ve added the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible to my personal library.
I recommend the King James Version (KJV). It’s a beautiful work of literature and the language is dated enough that you will never forget the important role of interpretation. More modern versions sound like they were written last year, which can have the effect of causing the reader to read the bible as if it were meant to be read cover-to-cover and understood without further explanation.
What is the best “literal” translation? I have used Young’s Literal Translation. Are there any others?
I”m not sure how I would evaluate the “best” literal translation. A translation that is *most* literal would sound like gibberish to most English speaking folk. When I was young, the one most widely used was the New American Standard Version.
I use a New American Standard edition because it tries to be close to the original words, but where it is not possible it will put the literal translation in the margin notes, which I find most interesting. Mine also includes in the margin notes alternative wordings or will note questionable passages, like the end of Mark. My least favorite (aside from all the paraphrase versions, which are not even translations) is the NIV – I have found too many examples where the translators deliberately changed the text to fit their theology. Granted that there is some judgment involved in translating from one language to another, but how can you claim that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God and yet deliberately change what it says?! It makes no sense to me.
Dr. Ehrman,
Somewhat unrelated question. Do we ever have ancient texts with “mistakes” that have been “scratched out” and replaced by something else? Knowing that writing materials were scarce and valuable, what were a scribe’s options if he made an error and realized it right away? There probably wasn’t anything like a “rough draft” in those days, I imagine, so there must have been some things some of the authors wrote, then later reflected on it and thought, “You know, I think what I should have said here was…”. Also, is it possible that the original authors of the Gospels made multiple “original” copies, perhaps updating and changing certain details with each change? That’s what I do when I go back and update any creative writing in my meager canon. If this is true, then more than one “original” text could have been in circulation. This would certainly compound the challenge of identifying the “original” text.
Yes, we have manuscripts that do that, definitely. Corrections are sometimes interlinear, and sometimes in the margins.
Dr. Ehrman,
Knowing that the NIV and the NASB are translations from conservative Christians, do you still find these usefull as a scholar?
Thanks, Jay
No, I almost never read translations, at least of the NT. For the OT, I don’t trust them becuase of problems I’ve found, where the translators make consistent what hte Hebrew leaves as inconsistent.
As far as translations of the “Old Testament” I have always used the Jewish versions of the TaNaKh and currently find the Koren Tanakh, official version of State of Israel, most reliable. The New Testament is a different issue. The books of the NT rather by the Hagiographers, Paul, and unknown authors were all written in Greek in different locations at different times, from 49 CE to the mid second century when style and idiom varied. My issue, however concerns the vox Iesu. We know the Yeshuine sayings corpus was originally voiced in Judean Aramaic in Palestine and must have been set to writing in Aramaic by ear witnesses and translated to Greek by different scribes at different times and places. This results in many mistranslations due to lost idiom. Luke 14:26 being a very good example where the appropriate saying would have been:
MAN DATE L’WATE W’LA SANE L’ABUHY
Whoever comes to me and does not set aside his father
W’L’IMMEH W’LATT-TEH
and his mother and the wife
W’LABNAWHY W’L’AXAWHY W’L’AXWATEH
and the children and the brothers and the sisters
WAP L’NAPSHEH TALMIDA LA MISHKAX DIHWE LY
even his own life disciple not of mine can he be
Sane “hate” was an idiom for “set aside.” That is still the practice when a young Jewish boy goes to yeshiva to study.
My point is that the entire Yeshuine corpus of sayings should be studied by Judean Aramaic scholars to reconstruct the Aramaic through back translation and translate the Aramaic sayings directly to English.
The Harper Collins Study Bible (used) is available on eBay for about 5 dollars. -bw
I am reading “The Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha”. Are you familiar with it and do you have an opinion on it?
Yup, I think it’s absolutely fine, a good translation.
Dr. Ehrman — I have been reading an OT “Translation with Commentary” by Robert Alter. I have found this work to be refreshing and insightful. I especially like the extensive commentary which follows the text on every page. Have you had an opportunity to review this work and if so do you have an opinion as to the quality of the work?
As you would expect, it’s much more literarily satisfying than translations done by historical scholars and philologists. About accuracy, I don’t know: I haven’t done a careful analysis
Thank You
Bart,
A popular biblical phrase: Foxes have dens and birds have nests but the “son of man” has nowhere to rest (or lay his head), appears in both canonical gospels and the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas. One translation of Thomas, the Scholars version by Patterson and Meyer, changes the term “son of man” to “human beings”. This one small change flips the phrase on it’s head, it being human beings not Jesus who cannot find rest. If this same translation of “son of man” to “human beings” were applied to the canonical gospels we would have a very different Bible, even that “human beings” (sons of Adam), not Jesus, were to be arrested, mistreated, and crucified. Do you see the Patterson and Meyer translation as legitimate? And if “human beings” is legit, why should it not be applied to all of the canon?
Yeah, I think it’s a lousy translation.
Readers of this blog interested in the NRSV should be doubly interested in Amy-Jill Levine’s Jewish Annotated New Testament, now in its 2nd edition. It takes the basic NRSV text and heavily annotates it to show how the NT would have been interpreted by its first recipients. There are important points made on virtually every page. The various accompanying essays are fascinating. Also recommendable from Oxford is their Jewish Study Bible, a heavily annotated version of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) based on the Jewish Publication Society translation.
I suggest that an answer to the literal/idiomatic dilemma depends in part on the purpose of the translation, that is, to what use do you expect it to be put. If it is to be used in church for prayer or bible study, or for general inspiration, I think a more idiomatic approach would be appropriate. If it is intended for serious bible study leading to scholarship, then I think one would lean toward a more literal effort. With lots of footnotes in either case.
On those occasions when I’ve translated a verse or two (Hebrew only), I’ve sort of tried for a blend – idiomatically literal. Fortunately, I don’t have to do it very often, just when the available translations don’t quite convey what I think the words really mean. Or when I need to point out that there are variant readings.
Overall, I think it’s a dilemma that will never be resolved.
CS Lewis wrote much on Christianity, of course. Which Bible did he use? Seems like many he “read into” his beliefs and convinced others, as he chose to believe himself. Did Lewis have a layman’s or scholar’s understanding of the Bible and Christianity? He seemed to convince many others based on his own understanding?
Great question — I’m not sure which Bible he used. Probably the KJV for its literary merits; maybe the RV for study? Not sure. He was a brilliant scholar, obviously, but not with respect to the Bible, for which he had a highly intelligent but layperson’s views. (So took, for what it’s worth, with philosophy)
Dr. Ehrman,
First of all, I was pleased to read your recommendation of the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV), as this has long been my go-to Bible, the one that I have most marked up and highlighted! Regarding the NRSV, I seem to remember reading several years ago that some scholars on the NRSV translation committee were not entirely happy with the restrictions on gender language in the translation. (I personally think the NRSV is fairly balanced as far as gender language goes, but I know many conservatives have not been very pleased with that aspect of the version.) To your knowledge, did Dr. Metzger (or any other scholars involved in the translation process) express any concerns over the handling of gender language in the NRSV, or feel that there were undue restrictions placed on their rendering of gender language? I would be very interested in your perspective on the topic!
Kindest regards,
Cory Howell
Oh, it was a topic of *constant* conversation; and the committee changed policies over the years it was being done. I was hired by the committee in part in order to make sure they had been consistent in following the final policies by the end of their work. Metzger himself became very committed to the cause: terms that refer to both men and women should not be rendered as if applying only to men.
And it does not go out of its way (most of the time) to cover over problems with the text (for example, discrepancies) by translating them out of existence. . . .
Please give a few examples of where it has covered over problems. Or, where have you or someone else described some examples?
Well, one of them actually has to do with inclusive language — something I am passionately in favor of. But when it gets used in Hebrews 2 for the quotation of the Psalm “What is man that you are mindful of him” (translated “What are human beings”…) it *completely* misses the point, since Hebrews is referring specifically to Christ, not to humans in general. I had a big argument with members of the translation committee about this, and ended up losing. (I was just a fledgling scholar at the time and they were the big guns) (to mix a metaphor)
Still, even if studying Hebrew or Greek to understand the Bible would be good way to go, it doesn’t make us native speakers. And most of us are growing in different cultures than the cultures those 2 languages were (past tense because even if those two languages exist today, they are different than 2000 years ago) used.
Also probably a foreigner (meaning not native ancient greek or hebrew speaker) student, when he reads he anyway translates the text (maybe just in his mind, not writing or speaking out) into his native language. Most of people I know does it like this. I am not sure anymore how to make my point though. Foreigner has his own mother tounge and culture he grew up in. His understanding or interpreting is based on the language he already knows. What something in Ancient Greek means in modern English for example.
What I try to say, is that I don’t think that the language studying is enough. Language is related to culture anyway
I was wondering how would you compare the RSV to the NRSV? Is it the same literality but the language of the NSRV is more contemporary?
I was also wondering which English translation of the bible would you say is the most difficult to read? By that I mean general “highest reading level,” ie. breadth of vocabulary, grammatical construction, etc. with no concern whether it’s metaphrase or paraphrase. I assume King James would be up there but I was wondering if there were other standouts.
Also do you put any value in reading the Douay–Rheims and other translations of the Vulgate, or would it be wiser to steer clear and stick to translations directly from Hebrew/Greek?
The NRSV did bring the language up to date; it used inclusive language for humans when both male and female appear to be intended; and it based the translation on scholarshiop on the Bible (e.g., study of the Dead Sea Scrolls) that happened since the RSV. Yes, I’d say the King James is one of the most difficult to understand, because of the change of the English language over the past 500 years.
I know the World English Bible includes some Orthodox books like 3 and 4 Maccabees and 1 and 2 Esdras, is there a NRSV version that includes Orthodox books like these as well? Would you consider these books worth reading?
I also know it’s not your first choice but would you be able to speak to the reliability of the World English Bible and if it’s worth reading?
Yes indeed. Any NRSV that has an Apocrypha in it; ;the HarperCollins Study Bible that I use does. As to the WEB, I’ve never looked at it closely or analyzed it as a translation.
I am here because my mom asked for the “best bible.” I see that its NRSV. Thats great. I also own a (leather-bound) “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, KJV.” Have you ever seen that? I just had the thought “I wonder if Bart Erhman ever looked at that for accuracy on the extra-biblical content.” If so in a word reliable or unreliable?
No, don’t know about it! (Weird that a Skeptic would use the KJV though… Maybe it makes the skepticism easier?)
It certainly makes rebutting my biblical literalist family members easier. Of course it goes in one ear out the other. But it comforts me to have a retort that has some bite. Its hard to find but the website is still in existence. They had a great mobile app too but it has been left with like iOS X and not updated. You know for arguing on the fly. LOL. Love your work BTW. The author spent a lot of time on it and I find it pretty impressive. Its worth a peek IMO.
If the translations are always translated from the original languages, as I have heard they are, like…OT from Hebrew and NT from Greek, why is that the other translations (non English) have some mistranslations as English translation has?
I have read translations from few languages from different periods and old translations says something like following: 40:15-17 Job for example in some translations talk about Behemoth’s dick, but later translations talk about it’s tail. And same kind of change happens in other languages. But it looks like systematic. Is newer always more accurate?
Could you say how it works? Thank you
I’m not sure about this specific instance, but usually it is because the original language itself is so ambiguous that it can be taken to mean different things, and these different things come to be expressed in the various translations (so if something could mean one thing or the other, some translations go with one, others the other)
Thank you very much for answering. Languages are fascinating.
Hello!
Since there is no spanish NRSV Bible, what would be the best spanish translated Bible version so far? Or the one more closely associated with it?
I’m not sure if you know the answer, but maybe you know someone that knows it and I would appreciate any advice.
I don’t know, but hopefully someone else can tell us!
Hello Dr. Ehrman, thanks for your response. I have to thank you also for your great advice on the Bible translation NRSV: it is indeed the best translation I have read in english so far!
However, I noticed that recently some other versions of the NRSV came out, including a catholic and an anglicized version, an updated edition, etc. Which one of these would you recommend more?
“m not familiare with them, though I imagine the most recent updated version would be an improvement.