(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...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!!
So, bottom line: the translators didn’t want to catch hell from the fundamentalists and literalists?
Well, not exactly that. There are lot of good Christian people who love these texts who aren’t fundies.
What about John 1:11? I’m not a Greek scholar, but in the interlinear anyone can see that the word “idea” is in there that is translated “his own.” “Eis ta’ idia eelthen kai hoi idioi auton ou parelbon.” I am told that this actually says “into the idea He came and the idea is not speakable.” I’m told it was translated like it is because of a huge agenda to make the Jews look bad. Thanks. This has bugged me for years and years and I’ve never met a true Greek scholar like you that could or would tell me the truth. Thank you!
Do you mean the *English* word “idea” No, the Greek word is IDIA (dictionary form IDIOS), which is unrelated to our English word “idea.” (it means unique to oneself) (English “idea” comes from hte Greek verb “IDEIN” “to know”; different word)
Thank you! Uh-hem. So do you think this is added? It sounds like it doesn’t fit in with the verses around it.
Yes, the verses were added, in my judgment.
Perhaps to avoing gaps in the verse numbers, with the brackets serving as an acceptable fig leaf? (Pardon OT metaphor on your NT blog) Or am I rationalizing along with the committee?
Yeah, you probably are. 🙂
In translating the New Testament, did the NSRV committee use the texts of codex Sinaiticus and codex Vaticanus as the core starting point and then use other texts to modify and edit. changes?
Not exactly. They used the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament. (Which is similar in many ways to the form of text in Sinaiticus and especially Vaticanus, but all the available manuscripts were considered for it, insofar as possible).
I read some on the Internet about the 27 editions of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and Metzger’s role in the more recent editions. Since it has been revised so much, this must mean that there are constant changes and updates to the Greek. I guess one uses the criteria (such as older texts get priority, etc.) for determining which changes are most valid that you outlined in your New Testament textbook. Is there much controversy regarding what gets into the Nestle-Aland editions? I guess what gets selected for the Greek text could be as varied as how the Greek gets translated into English. Actually, it sounds like a mess of a problem begging for errors to happen based on individual bias.
Yes, there are changes made over the years. *MOST* of them are not hugely significant for interpretation, and those that are, are quite well known to scholars. The last several editions of the text have not changed at all (they have changed the apparatus at the bottom of the page that discusses which manuscripts have which reading)
Thanks so much. I still can’t believe that you take the time to answer the questions of strangers, but thanks again.
In your first paragraph, you meant to say Luke 22, not 24.
Cheers
Thanks.
Hey Bart! 🙂
You write: “I think the translators should translate the oldest form of Luke that survives, and put any additions to the text in a footnote.”
Well, yes, but they did that in the first edition of the RSV with the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark, but the outcry was so great that they had to retreat under fire and restore the pericopes to the text. Metzger, I’m sure, would have remembered that difficulty. I don’t think we can blame the man for avoiding having his head handed to him on a platter a *second* time.
Here’s how they covered their retreat in the preface to the Revised Standard Version on the occasion of the second edition of the New Testament in 1971:
“The Second Edition of the translation of the New Testament (1971) profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946. Many proposals for modification were submitted to the Committee by individuals and by two denominational committees. All of these were given careful attention by the Committee.
“Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11), are restored to the text, separated from it by a blank space and accompanied by informative notes describing the various arrangements of the text in the ancient authorities.”
http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html
Many thanks as always! 🙂
I am told the update for the nrsv is coming in 2022. I sure hope they fix Hebrews 2. Any clues what all they might address? Metzger himself said he would preach from Mark 16 or John 8, so I respect that although he doesn’t think they are original, he thinks they belong for some reason. And yes I think they shoot themselves in the foot on gender inclusive sometimes. You think they’ll fix it?
I”m not sure. A long time friend and colleague, Mike Holmes, is in charge of the committee. I don’t think they are revealing their changes publicly, but I hope they do change that; the NRSV really botched that one.
Hello Dr. Ehrman!
So apparently the NRSV Updated Edition eBible is going to launch on
November 18, 2021. Are you planning to write a blog post about the update when it comes out (or at least after you have time read it a bit)?
I have no plans. THe head of the committee (Michael HOlmes) and one other translator (Jennifer Knust) are both old friends who have made guest posts on the blog. I’ll probably look at it and see if I want to blog on it. My sense is that the changes are not hugely significant, but … we’ll see.
In the discussion of “idia” (τὰ ἴδια) from John 1:11 above, as Prof. Bart notes, ἴδιος – pertaining to oneself – isn’t related to the English word “idea.”
It is, though, related to “idiot.” An idiōtēs was a private or lay person in the NT, I believe. I remember hearing that this noun involved the earlier idea of someone who kept to himself, who didn’t join with others in the agora for discussion – which the Greeks thought was crazy. Idiotic even.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
What’s your take on the NRSV translating proskuneó in Mt. 28:17 as “worshipped,” but in Rv. 3:9 as “bow down”? They look contextually correct to me, but I’m no linguist. Thank you for your time and work! 😀
– Rob
It means both, and so translators have to choose which is more appropriate in the context.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for your reply! 😀 Would you translate each accordingly (Mt. 28 “worshipped” Rv. 3 “bow down”), or change them in some way? JW. Thank you 🙂
– Rob
Yes. In Rev. 3 I don’t think the Jews are worshipping the Christians. They are being forced into submission to them.