In this thread on Bible translation, I have been talking about what it is translators of the New Testament actually translate. In order to answer the question, I have had to explain how we started to get printed editions of the Greek New Testament, including the first to come off the printing press, the Complutensian Polyglot (discussed in yesterday’s post). Today I take the discussion a step further, to talk about the first published (not the first printed!) Greek New Testament. Again, the discussion is taken from my book Misquoting Jesus.
**************************************************************
The First Published Edition of the Greek New Testament
Even though the Complutensian Polyglot was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, it was not the first published version. As I pointed out, even though the work was printed by 1514, it did not actually see the light of published day until 1522. Between those two dates a famous and enterprising Dutch scholar, the humanist intellectual Desiderius Erasmus, both produced and published an edition of the Greek New Testament, receiving the honor, then, of editing the so-called “editio princeps” (= first published edition). Erasmus had studied the New Testament, along with other great works of antiquity, on and off for many years, and had considered at some point putting together an edition for printing. But it was only when he visited Basle in August 1514 that he was persuaded by a publisher named Johann Froben to move forward.
Both Erasmus and Froben knew that….
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It won’t cost you much, and you’ll be so smart afterward. So get with it!!
What are some of the most significant differences–for Christian belief–of the Erasmus and texts following his, on the one hand, and the best and oldest manuscripts as we now understand them, on the other hand?
Do these manuscript differences account in any significant way for doctrinal conflicts between various Christian denominations?
No, the many differences are not the kind that would make someone stop believing whatever it is they now believe. They are significant for other reasons.
Erasmus is one of the historical figures I admire. So I want to try to put a positive spin on what he did. It was self-admittedly a rush job using mediocre manuscripts. But I’ve read that at least for people who could read Greek it facilitated a fresh look at the gospels and made them seem more alive after the–shall we say– rigidity of centuries of the Vulgate. As a practical matter, Eramus’s access to the best manuscripts was probably limited anyway. Could his work not be seen as a major step forward in understanding the gospels even though a flawed one? It would seem that the major mistake was to take his text as authoritative and definitive rather than a work in progress. Erasmus seems like the sort of person who would welcome improvements.
Yes, I agree completely
So if I’m reading this right, and I think I remember this from my studies on this many moons ago, Erasmus’ manuscripts are the primary sources for the Textus Receptus, which is the primary source for the KJV. Is that basically correct, which is why the KJV is inferior to the critical texts which use far more and earlier mss?
Yup, see today’s post.
Dr..Ehrman thank you. Could you also address the Catholic Bible in a post . Thanks
Interesting idea!
Hi Bart
I understand that the King James Bible is about 80% Tyndale. Which version did Tyndale use for his English translation? Thanks.
He too used the Textus Receptus, which I discuss in today’s post.
While Luther, Tyndale, and the King James translators supposedly created their Old Testament translations directly from the Hebrew, it is clear that they all relied on the Vulgate quite a bit as well. Likewise, Tyndale’s English translation relied on Wycliffe’s previous English translation from the Latin. I think this is probably behind the statement that ‘King James Bible is about 80% Tyndale’. I would say that the King James Old Testament is about 90% Tyndale, which is about 95% Vulgate. I may be a little cynical, but it is the same problem today when people rely on interlinear ‘translations’ rather than fully immersing themselves in the Hebrew.
Unrelated to this post: the first section of Psalm 18 seems to describe a massive natural disaster, possibly including an earthquake, a volcanic eruption, and a tsunami. Do you know of any evidence that such an event occurred during the period in which the Psalms were being composed?
One of the big problems with the Psalms is that we don’t know who wrote each one or when. (Most of them are attributed, e.g., to David, but these attributions are almost certainly false, and in some cases can be shown clearly to be false)
Do you know of anyone (with proper credentials) who has published on the natural history of the areas in which the various books of the Bible were composed? I’m particularly interested in this question of earthquakes because Amos dates his prophecy in terms of “the earthquake.” That leads me to believe there was a very memorable earthquake in Israel sometime in the 1st millenium B.C.E. The Institute for Creation Research has a webpage on it, but I doubt it’s worth my time to read what they have to say about it.
I don’t know of a book on this. The problem is that we don’t know about the earthquake, which one it was, or when!
Dr. E.,
From that which you’ve heard/read, could a well educated – but not NT or ancient literature specialist- modern native Greek speaker comprehend much, or any, of the older NT manuscripts?
Somewhat related. Over time, I’ve noticed that you refer to many NT scholars from Europe and North America but I can’t recall mention of Greek natives. If the answer to the first question is positive then it would seem that there would be many in the field.
Yes, a modern Greek reader could make sense of much of the NT in Greek. And as it turns out, there are not a lot of national Greeks who are NT scholars.
I didn’t know that different moderns language translations had different verse separations. How very interesting! How do folks cite “chapter and verse” to each other internationally (not scholars who probably have a standard, but other folks?)
I think modern translations all follow the verse divisions (virtually all) of the Greek and Hebrew printed editions, so there is a consistency from one country to another.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I read that the Church requested Jerome in the 300s CE to produce the Latin Vulgate. I also read that the Greek Vaticanus is dated back to the 300s CE.
As the NT was originally written in Greek, and if the Church had the Greek Vaticanus, why would it request Jerome to make this translation? Did they not consider the Greek language and the Vaticanus to be authoritative?
Kind Regards
VAticanus was probably produced around 370 CE or so, but it was just one of hundreds (thousands?) of manuscripts around at the time. It was not considered particularly authoritative. Pope Damasus asked Jerome to make a new translation becuase there were so many Latin translations in circulation and they all had numerous differences among them: he wanted a standardized authoritztive translation for Latin readers (i.e., the entire WEstern part of the Empire).
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Thank you.
As the original NT was in Greek, have any reasons been posited to why the Latin-Catholic Church didn’t produce their own Greek Bible, as wouldn’t biblical Greek get one closer to the original meaning of the text?
Regards
LIke most Christians, those in the Latin church thought that a translation into their own language was sufficient. (So too most Americans, including church leaders, are not interested in *Greek* editions but English translations.)