Loading...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 as explained in my post of Sept. 16th, 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 say more about that in a later post. For now: I was working part time teaching at Rutgers, and Metzger asked me if I was interested in being his full time research assistant for the Bible translation committee. It would be a forty-hour a week job, with a decent salary, and I could do it with flexible hours, so that I could do that *and* continue teaching at Rutgers. I jumped at the chance. It made for a busy couple of years, but it was worth it both financially and academically.<
Members of the blog get five posts a week, each and every week, on all sorts of things connected with the New Testament and Early Christianity. The fee to join is small, and it all goes to charity. So, hey, why not? Click here for membership options
Mr. Ehrman, something very characteristic in your behavior is the dignified and respectful way you treat lay people asking you lots of random things. I’m pretty sure this is related to something you mention in your post, namely your lack of insecurity. But I would like to ask you if, at this advanced stage in your career with all the knowledge you’ve accumulated, you feel insecure at times with regard to your expertise. I mean do you ever say “oh, boy! I should really refresh this “X” church father stuff” or something of that sort? Because it looks like you know EVERYTHING that happened during 0-300 CE!
Actually, I have that thought virtually every day. It’s quite amazing what I don’t know…. (Though I’m generally even more amazed at what I’ve forgotten….)
Very good – sounds a bit Socratic re being more conscious of how much more is still yet TO BE known! One of the hallmarks of someone who truly IS knowledgeable. 🙂
(And surely the thought in parentheses is that one a can only WONDER about what has been forgotten??)
When I was a student at Berea College Ky. many years ago, the motto was, “God hath made of one blood all nations of men.” Now the motto is “God has made of one blood all peoples of the earth.” While the goal of such changes might be laudable, I can’t help but feel, at times, as if I am living in an Orwellian “1984” world where the original context is sanitized for 21st century audiences.
Such changes may feel uncanny in English, which has never had a single, formal governing body. But change is the only constant in any language. Most of these changes bubble up from popular use. But many countries in the world actually do have single regulatory bodies whose goal is to initiate top-down changes too: for the purposes of standardization, aesthetics, etc. And even in English, individual corporations typically choose one of several third party standards to follow, or create their own.
I think most younger people, while understanding the genderless “men,” would also find it sounds incredibly dated. Which is why most third party standards for english advise against it. The very dated-ness also sounds a bit romantic perhaps, but as you said, laudable goals for sure.
Spanish. Hombre is singular, HOMBRES is plural –
Y de una sangre ha hecho [venir] todo el linaje de los hombres
Italian. Uomo is man, UOMINI is plural –
Egli ha tratto da un solo tutte le nazioni degli uomini
French. HOMMES means men –
Il a fait que tous les hommes, sortis d’un seul sang
Both Spanish (Real Academia de la Lengua Española) and French (Académie Française) have the governing bodies you allude to. In each of the three languages above, it is definitely the masculine noun that is used.
I think if one just remembers ‘laudable’ it should make it easier to accept? The goal is laudable? Do it.
Very interesting! I am most familiar with the NSRV bible and I am surprised how different some of the readings are in the other versions. Being a student in the late 70s and early 80s, I completely understand the computerization challenges. I am sure you had more than a few challenges with system availability and stability that tore your hair out (prematurely, I’m sure) . Thank you for all that work!!
For many years, I’ve been trying to work out the idea of a heaven that “includes” this world but is bigger than and transcends this world. It’s like this world is a “dimension” of its own perfection which is heaven. And in this world we can somehow start to grow into that heavenly perfection.
I see some similarities between my idea of heaven and those in John’s and Thomas’s gospels. In “Heaven and Hell,” you say that, in John’s gospel, those who believe in Jesus already have eternal life, and its rewards, in the here and now of this world, even before they die. Does that mean that in this world they have already fully entered into heaven or doesn’t that happen until they die?
In Thomas’s gospel, it sounds like heaven actually “is” the here and now of this world-at least for those who understand Jesus. But what happens to them when they die? Is there any sort of more complete heaven? Does simply shedding their bodies bring the fullness of heaven?
Are there other things in John’s and Thomas’s gospels that might help me develop my idea of heaven?
Among the key passages in John is the opening of chapter 14, often read a funerals, for good reason. John did think people would die; Christ was going up to heaven to “prepare a place for them.” They would dwell with him, and God, forever above. That is very different from the view of the Synoptics. I would say Thomas does not express much concern about what happens to people at death.
Can you indicate at least three main axes that NRSV improved on from its predecessor?
It’s (a) based on more recent scholarship (b) a better understanding of the manuscripts on which the Bible is to be translated and (c) incorporates more modern and less problematic language.
Do such committees ever discuss philosophical aspects like, Would God really want His divine will to be disseminated down through the ages in a manner such as this? And have you ever walked into a committee meeting and asked, “So, is everybody feeling inspired today?!”
No, never anything like that at all. It’s serious philological scholarship. Except when humor is afloat in the room.
Just curious, how were you credited in the published version? Seems like an awful lot of labor.
I wasn’t. Either were scores of others who did tons of work.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I remember seeing how revolutionary Emily Wilson’s translation of The Odyssey was in accuracy compared to past translations with misogynistic bias.
How many women are on the committee for the NRSV, and do you know of any misogynistic bias in specific examples that have been revised?
Thank you!
There were several for the OT and one for the NT. And the entire Bible was put into inclusive language when it came to humans. So the entire race was not called “man” and the people addressed, when including women, were not simply called “brothers,” etc. Though when the text itself is mysogynist, of course they left it (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:11-15).
Interesting!!
I’m interested with regards to inclusive language: where in many spaces I feel it is incredibly necessary, with a historical source like the Bible, does it not affect understanding the social-context of when it was first written?
Absolutely. It’s a fine line that has to be drawn. But in this case the translators decided that if the ancient authors were referring to both men and women, then a modern translation ahs to make that clear, so that if, say, the Greek word is strictly masculine but the people were both male and female, the English word should be clear about that.
I like the RSV. Where is the NRSV a better translation, do you think?
Btw, “man” or “mankind” can mean women and men.
No, the word “man” refers to humans who are male. You wouldn’t refer to the entire human race as “woman,” and so it’s also not right to refer to it as “man.”
Prof Ehrman,
In relation to your point 3.
In the spirit of Text Criticism in the bid to arrive at the earliest form of the text, wouldn’t changes in an attempt for ‘inclusive language’ be departing from the original form of the text or the expression of the author?
I’d say no, since the translators are not changing what the Greek or Hebrew say. They are translating it into language that akes sense to modern readers. And most modern readers to not think of women as “brothers” or as “man” — if you see what I mean. It’s a matter of making sense of what the author is trying to say in one language in the other one we are using.
Dr Ehrman, it sounds like you received some excellent insights through this work.
I’d like to ask a couple of general questions if I may.
1. When did the conservative notion of inerrancy of the Bible develop? Was it due to a particular influence or debate?
2. It seems like this idea is the equivalent of papal infallibility, a means of ensuring you are not open to questioning by your faithful. Would you agree with this suggestion?
3. It also seems to parallel the Islamic idea that there will be no prophets after Mohammed. Again, a method for guarateeing that you can never be challenged.
Thanks again for sharing your extensive knowledge so freely.
1. The modern understanding began to develop at the end of the 19th century in response to the effect science was having on understanding the Bible (“creation,” Adam and Eve, etc.); it became a key point int he 1890 Niagara conferences, and then really hit in the 1920s in the modernist-fundamentalist debates. 2. Interesting idea. I’d say it’s a bit different as well, though, since the Pope is not infallible in everything he says; the Bible is, down to the smallest word, in this view; 3. Yes, Islam has its fundamentalists as well, as does Judaism.
Many thanks for your reply, very much appreciated.
It prompted me to ponder a follow-up question(s). In your experience with those promoting the inerrancy view, do they just confine this to the English language version? Or a particular translation (eg King James)?
I’m curious how they explain their view for bible’s in other languages, or is this not a problem you’ve ever heard them address? Do they think these are translated by starting with their ‘inerrant’ English version? I’d like to hear which is their preferred translation for French, Korean, or perhaps even Russian bibles.
Most of the inerrantists I’ve ever had any connection with would argue that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscrispts (Greek and Hebrew). The arguments rather ridiculous once someone wants to argue that a particular English translation is word-for-word what God dictated. Now we’re just in the realm of foolishness.
The KJV-only people definitely think that! Lmao.
No wonder your preference for the NRSV–you had a lot to do with what went in it. The final decisions may have been others’, but your long
labors in the vineyard must have had some influence on the brew.
I have tried very hard to be a Christian at times in my life but I always seem to run into too many problems with the scriptures when I begin studying them. Your work has drawn me away again and I now find myself thinking similarly to you about suffering and how a God who is so loving and so all-powerful can allow so much of it. My question is off topic but I would very much appreciate you answering it or anyone else who has fallen off the Christian wagon. Here goes …. How did you replace Christianity in your life?
I came back to Christianity this last time because all the self-help stuff I was doing didn’t seem to be enough. I seemed to need to believe in something bigger than myself. Christianity addresses a lot of needs. It even allows us not to care about what happens in this world because it focuses on a world to come. So I’m wondering how you made the transition from Liberal Christian to Agnostic/atheist? Thanks 🙂
It was a tough transition. I was afraid that without a God life would be random and meaningless and I would descend into unruly chaos. In my case, it simply didn’t happen at all. When I came to think this life is all there is, that we are here by a combination of matter and chance (speaking simply) and that we won’t exist after death, instead of being depressed I became more lively, wanting to relish the good things in life as much as I could. My meaning now doesn’t reside in a figure above who can make sense of it all, even if he really doesn’t (for me at least, since the whole problem is that the world is such a mess that it’s hard to explain how a God could be in charge of it); it resides in things in this world: loved ones, love for family and friends, having intelligent and meaningful conversations; reading good books finding purpose in what I do, enjoying the simple pleasures of life — going for walks in the woods, enjoying good music, food, and drink, etc. etc. For me now it’s not confusing that things happen that don’t make sense; it’s the nature of life, and I get on with enjoying it as much as I can whenever I can and however I can, so long as I don’t harm myself or others.
Thanks Bart 🙂 I very much appreciate your reply. I will keep my Patreon subscription because even though I also seem to have quickly moved through the whole Biblical reliability thing I respect the charitable side of this site. I watched a doco on child poverty in the US and was appalled. If we all actually took the principle of the bible that seems to state we are here to serve, suffering would be greatly reduced. Thank you for your work, it has meant a lot to me.
Deb
I am sure you must have been very thrilled when your respectful master, BRUCE METZGER, first offered you one of the most exciting assignments anyone could have dreamed of. It must have been an honor, one of the few, to have been chosen with this fantastic, dignified responsibility.
At least, you can share, the tremendous benefits and satisfactions of your experience. I suppose, it is a life time pleasure that will stay with you forever?
As an english major, confirmed grammar nerd, and trans person who has been lucky enough to live through some profound changes to english gender and pronoun use… I’m really looking forward to those follow up posts on inclusive language : )
Please list the fundamental points that enrich you from these years of unusual experience. Any events or incidents that you cannot forget?
I had to read teh entire Bible VERY carefully word for word over those years, ot make sure the English words were correct and consistent. That surely made a big difference.
> I was to check through the translation, both OT and NT, for translational consistency.
I’ve noticed that in Genesis 11, the NRSV translates בָּבֶל, (bavel) as “Babel”, following the KJV (and nearly every other English translation). But the same Hebrew word is translated as “Babylon” in Psalm 137 and other places. Do you know why the NRSV committee decided to translate the city name “Bavel” in two different ways? It seems like the sort of inconsistency you worked to eliminate.
It is often teh case that the same Hebrew or Greek word gets translated diffeerently in different places in the Bible. The context is determinative of meaning. In this case the translators almost certainly thought that “Babylon” in this context of Genesis 11 would have been anachronistic and misleading.
Very interesting. What a process! On neutral language: I have found the sentence ‘Man is an animal who suckles his young’ is enough to persuade anyone that yes, ‘man’ is not automatically thought of as including ‘women’,
Hello Professor, hope you are doing well and receiving this in good health.
My question is about the gospels, apocrypha, and gnostic works. Why is it that some scholars, I have even read this from yourself (pardon if I’m mistaken) seem to take that the 4 orthodox gospels as a collection of oral traditions filled with fiction events, however with respect to the apocryphal and gnostic works they seemed to be negated of this “oral” aspect and rather just complete fabrication. I mean when we look at it aren’t the 4 gospels nothing more than relaying fiction based on historical context like these other works (like the zombies in Matthew 27), if so why are they deemed more authentic or having a potential oral tradition than the non-canonical works?
(What I read from you is a comment that an apocrypha story is nothing more than a later fabrication, but wouldn’t this just be the case also for the gospels?)
I suppose some people do treat the non-canonical materials that way, but I don’t. They *may* be compositions right out of the head of an author, but it seems far more likely that the author is repeating stories/tales he’s heard. The reason it matters more for the NT Gospels is because they appear far more likely to have factual, historical information in them and so the fact they are based on long-standing oral traditions matters for assessing their historical value (an issue not much at stake with later Gospels.)
Dr. Ehrman: Did they have Roman Catholic and Eastern/Oriental Orthodox scholars on the NRSV committee?
Roman Cathlic, yes; Orthodox? I don’t recall, but the fact that I don’t suggests to me that the answer is probably not. But I don’t know for certain.
“ I would very much appreciate you answering it or anyone else who has fallen off the Christian wagon. Here goes …. How did you replace Christianity in your life?”
Two great world religions with billions of followers that recognize Jesus are Christianity and many may not know, is Islam. Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, believed by many as revelation of Word of God, 25 times simply to shed light on all the truths as well as unfamiliar miracles performed by Jesus that you need to learn about him. In addition, you will discover, to your amazement, accurate stories of 25 great Prophets of God like Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Solomon, David, Moses, Aaron, and even the miraculous birth of John the Baptist.
You will probably be astonished to learn there is even a chapter in the Quran named MARY (mother of Jesus). Jesus and Mary are highly honored in the Quran because they obey/believe in the Ancient/First religion as mentioned in Matthew 7: 21 “he that do the will of my Father (God) which is in heaven.”
Important to begin by asking God Most Merciful: “Please Help and Guide Me”
“My meaning now doesn’t reside in a figure above who can make sense of it all,” I am utterly shocked by this unlikely statement.
“God gives you a brain, use your brain. God gives you a brain to think, apply reasons.” “not afraid to go wherever the truth seems to lead” “use your intelligence to find the truth” “if it is true you should believe it”
May I know if you have changed your earlier stand for the worse?
Everything mankind does, eat good food not poison, “having intelligent and meaningful conversations”, are all must “make sense of it all.” Intelligence is one of the greatest gifts given to mankind.
“problem is that the world is such a mess that it’s hard to explain how a God could be in charge of it”
The world is never in a mess at all. Billions of people are having a nice time with solvable difficulty. The Sun shines, Earth rotates providing day and night, food available if mankind make an attempt to earn and work for food. People who live in the remote cold high mountain have food to eat. Just make our life successful like what you have achieved.
“the whole problem is that the world is such a mess” Kindly furnish “such a mess” with 2 examples in each continent?
“For me now it’s not confusing that things happen that don’t make sense;” Please elaborate.
I have tremendous respect for you and so also many of your followers and the scholarly world. You are what you are today simply because you use your intelligence (make sense) in all of your books and other outstanding achievements. Sadly, you seem reluctant to utilize this gifted ability in search of God – “doesn’t reside in who can make sense of it all,”
You chose the opposite way in matters pertaining to God, gave excuses, “hard to explain how a God could be in charge of it.” Earth is a completely unseen item in this colossal universe. Universe is perfect, it is therefore effortless for God to manage an unseen item like the earth in the cosmos.
I strongly believe that you are experiencing what Jesus had experienced where Satan instigated to do the wrong thing that “don’t make sense.” Please, kindly review your stand because, as a benevolent professor who help those in need, deserve to be with the righteous.