Loading...Here I continue some of my discussion of my involvement with the New Revised Standard Translation, not as one of the translators (I was still a graduate student) but as a behind the scenes helper and research grunt. I start this post with a bit of autobiography and end with issues of translations.
I have mentioned that I started out as a “secretary” for the committee when they were meeting twice a year to make decisions for the new translation, recording the decisions they made for changing the older Revised Standard Version translation. I did that for several years until they had finished their translation. I graduated from my PhD program in 1985, and I was already, at that point, teaching at Rutgers University.
My position at Rutgers was a rather precarious one, professionally. In the language almost universally used today, I was an “adjunct” instructor, that is, a temporary faculty member without full (or much of any) benefits and paid as part time, even though I was teaching the full load of courses (with larger classes than most of my colleagues). Rutgers had a special title for me. I was called
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!
Do you think that the tremendous exaltation of Mary by the early church and continued in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions was strongly influenced by people’s need or desire to access the “feminine” side of God—at least as the feminine was traditionally understood?
Allowing for the fact that you’re an agnostic atheist (or is it vice-versa), do you think that a more feminine understanding of God by Christians would be an improvement (make the world a better place in at least a small way) on the traditional male image?
I wonder if God has ever been thought of as gay. Perhaps it’s an unjustified (and, on my part, ignorant) stereotype, but gay men have traditionally been seen as being inappropriately feminine. Maybe a gay God could be a better blend of traditionally male and female characteristics. Plus neither God nor Jesus has/had a wife—though God the Father does have a son. (I’m not sure how the Holy Spirit – who seems to be without any gender – would fit in with the preceding.)
I’d say it’s hard to know how theological develpments are influenced by people’s desires, but it can make sense in this case. And I do think that the image of God would be very different if imagined as a loving mother instead of, say, an iron-fisted judge.
I remember one time when someone made a comment on a blog run by a right wing, religious conservative commentator. The commenter suggested that Jesus may have been gay and the moderator was not happy at all!
Given your (I think) recent interest in Epicurus, are you aware of claims being made about connections between the historical Jesus and Epicureanism?
i believe at least some members of the Jesus Seminar (with whom I know you greatly differ) see a connection between their portrait of the historical Jesus and the Ancient Greek philosophy of Cynicism—but not Epicureanism.
I’m currently reading book by a retired Methodist minister that’s entitled—The Jesus You Need To Know: How Jesus, Epicurus, and the Modern Science of Happiness Can Change Your Life. The author has some kind of relationship with the Jesus Seminar but replaces Cynicism with Epicureanism.
It’s not a scholarly book and could probably be more critically rigorous in its examination of these two figures. But Jesus has always been unavoidable interest in my life and I’ve long had an interest in and attraction to Epicureanism. Plus the inclusion of the “Modern Science of Happiness” (which I haven’t gotten to in the book yet but in which I’m also very interested) makes it an irresistible blend, a trifecta in fact.
Mainly just thought you might find it interesting to see such a connection being made.
I’m not surprised, but I”d say that Jesus was about as far from Epicureanism as one could imagine, when it came to understaning the divine, the world, the meaning and purpose of life, ehtics, and most everythging else. Personally I’m much more on Epicurus’s side of things, but my sense is that a lot of people who talk about Epicureanism are not really all that familiar with the ancient sources (e.g. Diogenes Laertius, Lucretius, etc)
Italians say ” traddutore: traditore”. It’s heard as almost the same word,but the translation is:
” translator:traitor”.Their fanatic love for their Italian operas,for example,could not abide any translation.When I saw in Budapest Verdi’s ” Falstaff” in Hungarian(!) many years ago,I decided they were right.
Is there a book lay people can understand about possible mistranslations in the Septuagint,like the well known “partenos”?
I’m convinced that”I am that I am” (Exodus 3:14) ,as translated from Hebrew to Greek,is wrong on at least two counts.It’s a bit better in Latin. This,as connected to “Before Abraham, I am”
( John 8:58), mistranslated from Aramaic to Greek- every single Peshita translation confirms it-, negates the common interpretation that Jesus was referring to himself as the God of Israel, when he was only saying that he preceded Abraham.
This claim- of being a supernatural being beyond human Time – would have been understood as blasphemous by the Israelites, and would have guaranteed their urge to stone him.But no one in that group of mostly ignorant, simple people,in my humble opinion,would have known,sought or remember to connect with Exodus 3:14. Not to speak of an entire group.Moreover,Jesus didn’t say it.
So I want to learn more about possible mistranslations in the Septuagint.
I wish there were a book like that, but I don’t know of one. Maybe someone else on the blog does and can help us out here!
I did not know this about Dr. Ehrman, even though I have read most of his popular books, watched hours of YouTube video lectures/debates and taken all his current Zoom courses. I was a life long Christian and in “professional” ministry for over 25 years as an Evangelical pastor. Largely due to Doctor Ehrman and other scholars like him, I no longer identify with any religion. It has been an unsettling 10 year journey but reading this personal blog post about Bart’s past work along with his other credentials has given me an even greater confidence in the veracity of his scholarship. Thank you!
Whoa. Sounds like you have an interesting story….
But if Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written by different people at different times then you don’t want to try too hard to make them similar or you risk obscuring their individuality, right? Similarly with Paul’s letters and the Deutero-Pauline letters. Do you think some translations try too hard to smooth out differences and thus give a false impression of the unity of the Bible (a talking point for some apologists)? Or is this not much of an issue with standard translations?
The goal isn’t to make them sound alike per se, but if the same phrases are used in similar contexts in the two books it is useful to have them rendered so they are the same phrases in English as well.
When you were delivering the NY Times, did it annoy you when people wanted their newspaper porched?
We didn’t porch very many of them, to my recollection. But when we did it was a good excuse to get out of the car and stretch the legs! What I HATED was doing the Sunday editions. Kinda hard to fling out a car window….
Hello Professor Ehrman, I hope you are doing well. I had a question about a contradiction in the New Testament. I was reading a debate you had with Rev Firth in April/May of 2019 you wrote, “Matthew and Luke both give a genealogy of Jesus that is strictly patrilineal: father to son, going back for generations (Matthew 1:1-16 starting with Abraham and bringing the family line down to Joseph, Jesus’ alleged father; Luke 3:23-38 starting with Joseph and taking the family line the other direction, all the way past Abraham to Adam). Question: Who was Joseph’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, and so on –all the way back to King David? Was it Jacob, Mathan, and Eleazar … (Matthew 1:15-16)? Or was it Heli, Matthat, and Levi… (Luke 3:23-24).” My question is, if the New Testament claims that Jesus was born of a virgin, how can Jesus have have a patrilineal lineage? Did I misunderstand something because you mentioned that he was his “alleged father?”
He can’t have. That was another point I made (or ae least always do make). Both matthew and Luke give genealogies of Jesus that he himself is not born into! Strange and interesting, though understandable.
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
On the topic of translations, I have a friend who wants to read an English translation of the bible that would be closest to the original Greek/Hebrew. What is your personal preference?
Thanks!
It depends on what he means as “closest to the original.” Every translation tries to be as close as possible to the original. Some translators think you do that by being hyper-literal (like those who do New American Standard Bible); others think it’s by paraphrasing the original to make the closest sense in real English (The Way); others that idiomatic translation is necessary (Good News Bible); others that you shoulld be as lteral as possible but completely readable to convey the truest sense possible. That’s my view. For that, I prefer the NRSV, especially in an annotated edition, such as the Harper Collins Study Bible.
Thank you! I will let him know.
Quote:
Mark uses the passive verb form ēgerthē, translated “he was raised”, indicating God raised him from the dead
Dr EHrman
If according to mark god raised jesus, how come john has his jesus doing an active role in raising himself? Is it true that when it comes to mark, the ressurection is talked about in the PASSIVE form and does not give jesus an active role in his ressurection?
Assuming mark thought jesus was “the ressurection…” why would he say god was the active agent in raising him?
it appears to me that mark believes that jesus hasno active role in the miracle otherwise he would have indicated it
Yes, there’s a big difference between saying “God raised Jesus from the dead” (shorthand: “Jesus was raised”) and saying “Jesus raised himself from the dead” Different authors could well have different views. (And the same author may state his own view differently at different times, possibly without thinking through the issues carefully) But in standard/traditional/orthodox thinking, God raised Jesus.
When do we get the full autobiography? 🙂
Not gonna bore you with *that* one…
In describing ‘The Members of the Standard Bible Committee’ in their book, *The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible*, the closest thing to an acknowledgement for your contribution appears to be “…with two doctoral students from Princeton Seminary who served as recording secretaries.”[pg. 2]:
https://archive.org/details/makingofnewrevis0000metz/mode/1up
Who was the other student?
There were actually a bunch over time, and sometimes three doing it at the same time — so I’m not sure what he means. Among the others were my friends Charlie Cosgrove and Michael Holmes, both of whom went on to fine careers.