Loading...For a very long time I’ve been interested in the question of how to translate ancient texts, such as the Greek New Testament, into modern languages. Early in my scholarly career my interest was piqued by the work I did as a graduate student working as a research grunt for the translation committee for the New Revised Standard Version. My Doktorvater, Bruce Metzger, was the chair of the committee and he asked me, during my graduate studies, to be one of the scribes for the Old Testament subcommittee. In that capacity I recorded all the votes that were taken by the translators for revisions of the text of the Revised Standard Version, in whichever subsection of the committee I was assigned to. Normally the subsection would have, maybe, five scholars on it. They would debate how to modify the text of the RSV, verse by verse, word by word; they would then take a vote by show of hands; and I would record their decision.
This was an eye-opening experience for me. Bible translation (or the translation of any foreign-language work, for that matter) is an inordinately complicated procedure. It is impossible to replicate the exact meaning of one language in another, since the nuances of words vary from one language to another. Let me give an example from the Greek of the New Testament. In English we have different terms that mean something like “love” – for example, “adoration,” “passion,” “lust,” “like,” and, lots of others. Each has its own connotations. Greek too has a variety of words, and they all, in principle, could be translated with the word love.
Early in graduate school we were taught that one Greek word used in the New Testament, PHILIA, typically refers to …
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, give yourself a gift!! There are only ninety-eight shopping days left until Christmas! And remember, every dime of your small fee goes to charity!!
“some slaves could be highly educated, wealthy, and own slaves themselves”
That’s very interesting – I hadn’t heard of that arrangement before. Are there any high profile examples you can recall? And did these slaves actually own other slaves, or merely manage them on behalf of their owner?
You may be interested in reading up a bit on ancient slavery. A good place to start for those interested in the NT is Dale martin’s book Slavery as Salvation.
I read that the OT was translated before the Dead Sea scrolls were available to scholars, I wonder if having those texts now will result in substantial changes in the OT for the upcoming NRSV Updated Edition …
No, the Scrolls have been available to scholars for a long time (well before the NRSV was done).
I HAVE to stop reading Wikipedia …
The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you can write corrections. There was an old story about the CIA writing American history on Wikipedia.
Very well said, Bart, and I concur with the difficulty and impossibility of translating from one language to another. I was born in Italy, and whenever I try and translate a witty Italian saying into English to a friend, I can’t ever find the appropriate words to reveal the same wit/nuance as in Italian. It never works,so I stopped trying. The English language is also obscure at times with it’s meanings, i.e, we park (cars) on driveways and drive on parkways. Huh!!!!???? Good read,
Even translating from German into English is difficult if you really want a good translation–and can end up creating a rather lively conversation just regarding one sentence.
Question(s)–going from Greek to English, are there examples such as from German “Ich drueck dir die Daumen”, where a literal translation would be essentially incomprehensible? Do you then exchange idiom for idiom, but then how does that affect something like a concordance? Can that create theological problems? How do you not have a nervous breakdown?
Yup, the idiom’s are always the hardest. It doesn’t affect a concordance (which just lists the words). But it affects lexica and translations, and one does have go make decisions….
Hi Bart, off topic but I’ve been looking into Papias and there is a 10th century author called Agapius of Haeropolis who writes “ And there was at that time in Menbij [Hierapolis] a distinguished master who had many treatises, and he wrote five treatises on the Gospel. And he mentions in his treatise on the Gospel of John, that in the book of John the Evangelist, he speaks of a woman who was adulterous, so when they presented her to Christ our Lord, to whom be glory, He told the Jews who brought her to Him, “Whoever of you knows that he is innocent of what she has done, let him testify against her with what he has.” So when He told them that, none of them responded with anything and they left.” He seems to be referring to the woman caught in adultery story. Do you think Papias actually wrote a commentary on John? It seems odd that Irenaeus and Eusebius never mention this. Do you think Agapius is wrong/lying?
I doubt if he’s lying, but I also doubt if he has much reliable information on someone who lived 800 years earlier. Papias *does* mention a woman condemned of sins being taken before the Lord (in one of the surviving fragments); often that it taken to refer to the passage in some mss of John, but it could be other passages as well. He probably took it that way though.
I really enjoyed this post as this is a subject which fascinates me. There has been some interesting discussion in The Tablet about inclusive language in translations but occasionally this descends into sectarian bias over preferences for translations either with a Catholic lineage (ie The Jerusalem Bible) or those with a connection to the “Protestant” King James version, which is a pity. A friend recommended to me David Bentley Hart’s translation which he said was literal but very much concerned with the Greek, as in the case of, say, a translation of Plutarch, rather than the underlying religious message ( but I haven’t had a chance to check it out yet.)
What was the nature of the voting? Was there mostly consensus or a lot of 3-2 decisions? Nice explanation of the difficulties in translating the Bible
Lots of closely split decisions! By show of hands!
The oft quoted rabbinic adage from Bavli, “One who translates a verse literally is misrepresenting the text, but one who adds anything of his own is a blasphemer,” seems to reflect your final NRSV quip about the balance of literal and free. So much has been written on translation, especially Bible translation, and I think it is important to stress that different translation styles and degrees of “freedom and literalness” serve different purposes. I just published a quite “literal” translation of Genesis as the first volume of the Transparent English Bible, of which I am editor (transparentenglishbible.com), and I have found that in some cases, there can be a kind of basic or “primitive” (forgive the word) beauty in the rhythm of ancient Hebrew. Buber, Fox, Alter, Friedman, et al. have explored the parameters of this approach. We have develop our own for the project. It is not the literary style of the Geneva/King James tradition, still reflected in the RSV/NRSV, but it has its own unique style, that like a kind of pulsating drumbeat, has its appeal, especially if read aloud. I was struck by the redundancies that most translation leave out, e.g. the repetition of “this one” (fem) three times in Genesis, smoothing out the Hebrew to good English style. The same with idioms: And Jacob “left” X rather than “Jacob lifted his feet and walked to X. When the “literal” is understandable, I prefer it, or at least noting it in the footnotes, as the old KJV used to do in the margins. I have really enjoyed comparing your Apostolic Fathers Loeb translation to Kirsopp Lake’s older edition that I read for hundreds of hours in graduate school…
Dr. Tabor, I just finished reading your Paul and Jesus book and really enjoyed it. Lots of great ideas to think about!
Best wishes.
I just started into your Genesis translation! I really like the idea. The intro to the book reminded me how much theology can influence translation even in seemingly simple verses. I would rather read the original expression with a footnote amplifying or explaining when necessary than have the translator assume I don’t need to know what the text originally said. (Granted, even a “literal” translation is still a translation, as Dr. Ehrman pointed out with the various words for love, slave, etc. Translating even one word involves choices!)
“was that the translation in the end was to be “As literal as possible and as free as necessary.”
That’s what they strove for, and in my opinion, in the end, they succeeded well. It is still my favorite translation.”
Of course, your South Node is in Gemini (I did not have to surch far as your birthdate is on wikipedia!) and your North Node in Sagitarius…
Your South Node is your comfort zone… the one you have been very good at for many lifetimes (for those who believe in this) and so why come back and go through getting back into diapers again, drooling all over ourselves, learning to walk again etc … just to be good at something we are already good at?
No.. it’s to learn to be good at something new… and that is not the comfort zone!
A bit like Jesus asking Peter to get out of the boat and walk on water!!! 😉
Happy Rosh Hashana to you Mr. Ehrman! 🙂
P.S: Maybe the “Little Book” you said you would like to write someday will be the one more on the Sagitarius style! 😉
I was wondering Bart what you make of Eugene H. Peterson’s “The Message Bible”?
I believe it’s a paraphrase, isn’t it? I never recommend them!
Dr Bart …
According to Galatians 1:17 , Paul went into Arabia .
Do you think this event is Historically accurate?
If yes , do you assume that Paul had used a Translator?
It probably means the Nabatean Kingdom; yes, I think he is just recalling where he was. I don’t know what language he would have been speaking, but so far as we know he knew only Greek. If he was there on a mission, I would assume he was speaking with Greek speakers.
Thanks Dr Bart .
But how would he have communicated with James and Peter? You say (and I believe) that they didn’t speak Greek so wouldn’t Paul have to converse with them in Aramaic?
I’m assuming with a translator. Maybe that’s why there were together only for a few days.
What kind of scholar is best suited to translate the Bible?
I understand that religious scholars study Greek and Hebrew, and that context is required to understand the text. But I would think, and I may be wrong about this, that the top religion and history scholars are not also the top Greek and Hebrew scholars. Did the panel consist of experts in each area? If not, then who is better suited to translate the BIble: the religion/history expert who is pretty good at Greek and Hebrew, or someone superior at Greek and Hebrew but without the religion/history expertise?
Bible translators are almost always biblical scholars with a special focus on philology, but also exegesis.
How often were the decisions unanimous vs close calls? If five experts all agree, I would call that expert consensus. But if it’s a 3-2 vote, a 2-1-1-1 vote or a 1-1-1-1-1 vote with one ultimately convincing the rest after much debate, that doesn’t make me feel confident anyone knows how to best translate the text.
There was no record of the votes kept. Often there was unanimity; maybe not quite as often a split vote. Rarely anything other than a two-way split.
Thank you for this fascinating account! I am myself a translator and German is my native language. I work on contemporary technical texts, so of course the difficulties are much smaller, but still: A German “Schraube” could be a bolt or a screw in English, the German adjective “sicher” can translate as safe, secure, certain, reliable or confident, and “Leistung” can mean service, electrical power, performance or achievement. I watched a video on your YouTube channel of a debate you had some years ago with Dr. Wallace about whether the original text of the New Testament can be known. In it, you argued about the meaning of the German term ‘Ausgangstext’ for the Greek NT sources. Dr. Wallace suggested (perhaps not seriously) that it meant ‘exit text’. Did you ever clear this up with Dr. Wallace?
So: In translation, “Ausgangstext” is what is called “original text” in English. However, “Ausgangs-” does not suggest ‘original’ in the sense of ‘first, authentic’. In composite nouns, “Ausgangs-” means ‘starting point’ (‘Ausgangspunkt’ = starting point for a walk, ‘Ausgangssituation’ = initial situation). So ‘Ausgangstext’ means ‘the text that was the starting point for the translation’.
Did he really say that? It’s a technical term that is meant to be distinct from “original text,” as you indicate. It would not be translated as “original text” in this context; if it *is* translated it is as “initial” text (i.e., the text that lies behind all the surviving textual witnesses even if it is not what the author originally wrote). And one task that needs to be done (to Dan’s chagrin, I’m afraid) is getting from one to the other!
Very slightly OT question: Did the author of Matthew know Hebrew? One would think not, because he uses the LXX translation of ‘almah as parthenos. But I was just reading Brettler and Levine on the Suffering Servant, and they point out that in verse 8:17, Matthew follows the Hebrew of Isa. 53:4, rendering holayenu (our illnesses) as astheneias hemon rather than LXX hamartias hemon (our sins).(The NRSV says “our infirmities.”)
Granted that Matthew was citing Isaiah to show Jesus’s healing of the sick was a fulfillment of a prophecy, I can’t see how Matthew would have made such a change to the LXX unless he knew the Hebrew word, which has nothing to do with sin. But if he knew that much, how come he accepted the LXX parthenos, which (as I’ve read your explanation) had by that time morphed into meaning “virgin.”
He wouldn’t necessarily have to read Hebrew (I don’t think he could) to be quoting the form of the text as found int he Hebrew. He could be quoting a Greek translation that is more true to the Hebrew than the Greek translation more widely known today.
That makes sense, but do we know of any such texts? I agree that the translation he uses fits much better with his story than the LXX version, since Jesus had just healed. (Though even so, Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah is an overstretch!)
Yes, we do. For example, a manuscript of Jeremiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Hebrew, is much more like the Greek translations of Jeremiah than like the later Hebrew manuscripts we use to translate the text into English — another way of saying the Greek versions are more like a form of the book of Jeremiah in Hebrew that was not known before the discovery of the DSS than after.
Bart: “He [Matthew] wouldn’t necessarily have to read Hebrew (I don’t think he could) …”
Matthew would at least have known enough Hebrew to appreciate (if not author) the Hebrew gematria inscribed in his opening genealogy (14 = דיד x 3), right? Unless you think Matthew was mindlessly using yet faithfully reproducing a source that he himself didn’t understand? What do you think? Did Matthew really so fundamentally misunderstand his sources? Or did he at least have a rudimentary understanding of Hebrew gematria?
Probably so. Then again, I have 19 year old students who understand it too. I’m not sure what hte misunderstanding is that you’re speaking of, thoguh? (except, of coruse, that he has had to drop a bunch of names out in teh second set of 14 to get 14, and that the third set only has thirteen generations!)
Bart: “I’m not sure what hte misunderstanding is that you’re speaking of, thoguh?”
I think Matthew, like your 19-year-old students, would have presumably understood enough Hebrew to get the point of the gematria in the genealogy. The alternative would be that Matthew is merely using a source that he himself is not capable of understanding.
I also wonder if Matthew (or at least someone in his community) knew at least enough Hebrew to hyper-literally misread the parallelism of Zechariah so that Jesus is portrayed as riding upon two donkeys in the triumphal entry.
Yeah maybe. Though you don’t need to know any Hebrew at all to misread it!
Bart: “Yeah maybe. Though you don’t need to know any Hebrew at all to misread it!”
Actually, someone in his community or tradition would have needed to read the Hebrew of Zecharaiah in a hyper-literal way and either miss the poetic parallelism or purposefully capitalize on it as some kind of super pesher fulfillment. Or we could hypothesize that there was already an earlier hyper-literal translation of the Hebrew of Zechariah, but someone needed to read the read the Hebrew in this way.
Yes, I’m saying they misunderstood the synonymous parallelism, which could be done in any language (and often is!)
Bart: “Yes, I’m saying they misunderstood the synonymous parallelism, which could be done in any language (and often is!)”
I agree that Matthew is predominantly relying on the Greek of Zechariah. The only element of Matthew’s ‘citation’ that reflects the Hebrew of Zechariah (עַ֖יִר בֶּן־אֲתֹנֽוֹת) also reflects the Hebrew of Genesis 49,11 (עִירֹה … בְּנִ֣י אֲתֹנ֑וֹ) (Meyers, 130-131), understood later by some as a messianic text, and it is Gen 49,11 LXX (δεσμεύων … τὸν πῶλον τῆς ὄνου) that best explains the exact choice of animals used in Matthew’s version of the story (ὄνον δεδεμένην καὶ πῶλον μετ᾿ αὐτῆς): the bound colt and the female donkey, perhaps it’s mother. This lends credence to Stephen Carlson’s revival of FC Burkitt’s view of Matthew’s use of a florilegium, ie, a book of messianic testamonia, perhaps initially composed in Hebrew, as attested to by Papias.
Separate comment: Your story reminds me of the Italian phrase (if I have it right): “tradutire, traditore.” Loosely: to translate is to betray.
This is why I read your books in English and not in Swedish (I don’t even know if they are translated – probably not). I know English well enough that a translation isn’t worth it.
What do you think about the King James translation? I hear it’s very beautiful but not very accurate.
Yes, beautiful and influential, but not accurate by modern standards.
Could you write a post on some of the big translation inaccuracies in the King James Version? Or would that be too much work?
I probably could!
Off topic question – in John 13 Jesus says to Judas “what you are about to do do quickly”. Those reclining at the table don’t know what he meant, but thought that since Judas had the money bag he may have meant buy something for the “Feast”. When Judas leaves night falls.
So night is about to fall, Jesus tells Judas to do something quickly, and the other disciples assume he means buy something for the Feast.
Shouldn’t we conclude from this that the “Feast” is now in progress?
Yes indeed, they are in the midst of having their meal together. But it is not the Passover meal itself. He is crucified the next day and John tells us that *that* day was the day on which they were starting to “prepare” the Passover meal. That’s why it was called “The Day of Preparation (John 19:14). That’s also why in John the disciples do not ask him where he wants them to “prepare the Passover” for the evening meal, the afternoon of the meal they are having that night. It wasn’t a passover meal.
I think John 19:14 just means it was the Friday of the Passover week.
I think in John 13:29 the disciples understand the urgency of the request but not what’s being asked. They think Judas is being told to go quickly to buy what was needed for the Feast because night is about to fall. So the Feast must be in progress, it is not the next night.
Jesus is also the bread of heaven for John, and according to Joshua 5 this bread from heaven stops the day after the Passover.
It could mean that if it just said “preparation” But it explains explicitly which preparation it was: Preparation FOR THE PASSOVER. Can’t get around that one.
But is it not preparation day OF THE PASSOVER – παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα.
In John 18:39 pilate says “But it is your custom that I should release one to you in the πάσχα”. He doesn’t mean during the passover meal, he means during the week-long festival.
It was sabbath preparation day during the week-long πάσχα.
Are you reading 19:14 It precisely says it *was* the παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα.
But for John πάσχα is a week-long festival, it has no specific day of preparation. The lamb is prepared 4 days in advance and food can be prepared even on the day of passover.
So there’s no day of preparation of the πάσχα but there is a Friday of the πάσχα week.
Really? OK, if you say so. But what makes you think so, other than the verse we’re talking about? If it’s that verse, then you are saying that your conclusion is right because it is proved by … that very conclusion!
Other than possibly John 19:!4 I don’t think παρασκευὴ is ever used to mean anything other than the day before a weekly sabbath.
I think 19:14 could be translated as either “the Friday of Passover festival” or “the day of preparation before the passover meal” without problem.
But the account of the supper where Judas is told to do what he has to do quickly suggests the passover meal is already taking place. Why would the disciples think Jesus meant go quickly to get something needed for the feast if Judas would have all day the next day to get something.
Which other Jewish writings of the time have you consulted? No, it can’t be translated as the Friday of the Passover Festival. I understand why you would want to hold on to your view, since otherwise there would be a contradiction and you don’t think there can be a contradiction. I used to think that too. But I got to a point where I decided that “there can’t be a contradiction” was not a criterion by which to determine the grammar of a sentence. A sentence says what it says. In many instances of course it can be interpreted differently. But “the day of Preparation for the Passover” almost certainly means what it says. It is the day the Passover meal was being prepared.
I don’t mind if there are contradictions in the NT, I think there are lots of them, but I don’t think this is one. I think it can be translated as Friday of the Passover Festival.
There are many Jewish groups who have understand the counting of the omer as beginning on the day after the Sabbath during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
This special/high sabbath could have been referred to by someone like John as the “sabbath of the πάσχα” and the Friday preceding it as the “παρασκευὴ of the πάσχα”.
What are a couple of the most striking contradictions in your opinion?
Your final sentence I believe is the one you said before. What is your basis for saying it? (I.e., in what ancient source do you find this?)
I guess the most striking is whether Jesus was dressed in a red robe (matthew) or purple robe (John). The two nativities and genealogies are contradictory. Disciples remaining in jerusalem after the crucifixion or returning to galilee. Lots.
Lev 23:19 “And from the day after the sabbath, from the day on which you bring the sheaf of the elevation offering, you shall count off seven weeks”
Karaite Jews and Samarians understand this sabbath as the first sabbath after passover.
I think Aaron ben Elijah wrote in Gan Eden in the 14th century defending this interpretation,
“Because the previous section stated ‘You shall eat matzah for seven days’, even though it is a separate section, the definite article can be understood as referring back to the seven days of matzah because of the Shabbat that falls during the seven days of matzah”.
Anyone who uses πάσχα in place of matzah would call this sabbath the ‘σαββατον τοῦ πάσχα’.
Do you know of an example of that? An interpreter always has to look for the most plausible explanation; that one might be plausible, if in fact it could be established as something that ever happened.
No don’t think there is an ancient example. In the temple scroll the essenes are said to start on the count after the first sabbath following the matzah, and the talmud has polemics against the essenes and boethusians for always celebrating shavout on a sunday.
But I think the question is, given that the synoptics all use παρασκευὴ to just mean “Friday” for when Jesus was crucified, should we think John meant the same? or does παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα force us into thinking he mean something different. I think even the possibility that he meant Friday of the matzah means we’re not forced into it.
The word simply means “preparation” and was commonly used to refer to all sorts of preparations; for Jewish festivals, the day prior was always the day of “preparation” for the festival. If there is no other modifier, it was simply taken to mean preparation for the sabbath, since that was the most common festival — each and every week! If it was referring to some other festival, it had to be specified “Day of Preparation *for the Passover*”
Yes it means “preparation”, but when used to signify an entire day I don’t think there’s an example of it being used for any other day than before the weekly Sabbath.
Matthew and Mark call that day πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων; not παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα.
That’s exactly my point. Only John calls it the Day of Preparation for the Passover. Matthew and Mark precisely don’t call it that, because it is *NOT* for them. It is the Day of the Passover, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.
For Matthew/Mark this is the day leading up to passover, where Jesus sends the disciples into Jerusalem to prepare for it. Before evening comes.
This is supposedly the day John says Jesus was crucified. But Matthew/Mark refer to it as the first day of unleavened bread possibly because they’d never heard it referred to as the day of preparation of the passover.
The translation work is really incredibly important to know at least the real literary interpretation and meaning of what was written, if it is possible when relying on copies. (often centuries later as the event described (Hebrew Bible) and at least many decades later.
But ,,,,,,,,, for me, this is just the beginning of the “search for understanding”, and for this time I will avoid referring to the Jewish historical tradition that refers to the “Prades” system, or the multi-level system for to understand the scriptures.
The inventor of the deep psychoanalyst, Carl Gustav Jung and probably one of the world’s most remarkable scholars in psychology, spent his entire life studying this phenomenon, which was also the basis of his theses and views. He himself went into his own possession and found what he called the partly loss of his soul, and documented it as much as he could. This ended up being a journey that we find in some of the Apocryphons (with Gnostic views) also Revelaton and its pictorial images. He documented it in the 3 volumes called “The Red Book”, including the 7 sermons of the dead (the last very Gnostic). In his way into his “journey” (a project who lasted about 3 years of his life) is just a personal (often, if not always) being confronted with similar mythical images found in the Bible, an individual expression of the soul.
The thing is, he also claims that philosophy often ends up in allegories ,,,, the visions of the soul (Revelations) use different symbology, more “mythology”, strange and colorful comics used by the deeper self and also expressed from itself.
For me, after a thorough literary translation, it is no less important to understand the meaning of the context in relation to understanding the allegory that is often used ,,,, and perhaps even more importantly, to understand the imaginary that arises from a deeper counseling (uncounciousness according to Jung ) (read dreams, deep meditation, ritual techniques for outbursts that Gnositcs seemed to use ((5 seals)) and more, such as Apocryphons and Revelations (including the one in the Bible) and the visions of prophets in the Hebrew Bible may have come from.
Translating / understanding these levels is very exciting for me!
How long did the translation for the NRSV take?
I should know that. It was finished in 1988 or 1989. I’m not sure when it was started — but years before that!
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. How does ‘Transliteration’ play out in the Bible translation process?
Q2. Can we talk about ‘lost in transliteration’? Has there been any expert study in this area?
1. It doesn’t at all. 2. Not really. Transliteration just means putting the words from a language that does not use your alphabet into the letters you are accostomed to. For example, “word” in Greek is λόγος; in English letters it is LOGOS. Same word, just put into our alphabet.
Nice post, Bart. As a professional translator (French to English, mainly in the area of finance), I’m always interested to read posts and articles about matters linguistic as they pertain to the Christian faith.
Perhaps I might ask you a pair of related questions? If a hypothetical person were keen to begin learning a biblical language, just for their own enjoyment and to help them dig deeper into the text: (i) which would you recommend they choose out of Hebrew and Koine Greek, and why?; and (ii) how would you recommend they go about it, assuming they don’t have access to a college course or a personal tutor?
1. Depends if they are more interested in the OT (Hebrew) or NT (Greek. 2. You’d have to get some basic teach-yourself books (choose one that seems user friendly) and work hard to get online help from someone who knows what they are talking about. The problem is that most people who want to volunteer their help are not necessarily in that category! But if you choose carefully, you could have a good experience.
Thanks for that solid advice, Bart. If I might push you a little harder:
(1) Personal interests aside, I assume you would argue that Koine Greek is generally easier to learn than Ancient Hebrew?
(2) Any recommendations on user-friendly teach-yourself books for both Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek?
1. It was for me! 2. Nope, sorry — I don’t really know. Maybe other blog members can help?
Thanks for taking time to respond, Bart!
Prof Ehrman,
Unrelated question please:
In 1 Corinthians 13:10 – ‘when the COMPLETE comes, the partial will come to an end’. What is the ‘complete’? People have offered varied meanings ranging from it being the Bible (completion of the canon i.e. complete New and Old Testament – a view I got from a Church of Christ Minister). The Zondervan Study Bible ascribes it as the ‘time of perfection’ i.e. ‘God’s new world in which we see God face to face’.
What really comes in to end the ‘partial’ in the context of Paul’s message?
The “complete” or the “perfect” — he’s referring to the return of Jesus to bring in God’s kingdom.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, did Paul have dual citizenship (Jew and Roman) or he professed Roman citizenship for fear of the punishment that was to befall him in Act 22:27-28.
Jews did not have “Jewish citizenship.” they were simply people with Jewish parents who followed Jewish practices. Acts says Paul had Roman citizenship but I don’t think that can be right. He himself, of coruse, says nothing about it in his letters, and nothing that he does say would suggest he would have been a citizen. It was a rare privilege, and he was not an elite member of society.
Per Dr. Tabor, “So much has been written on translation.” So for what it’s worth to anyone, I highly recommend the following:
1. Breon Mitchell’s forward to his translation of Kafka’s “Der Prozess” (“Trial” doesn’t really capture “Prozess,” yes?). It’s terrific. What obligations translators have to the author since, indeed, it’s “impossible to replicate the exact meaning of one language in another, since the nuances of words vary from one language to another.” For one of many examples: rendering “Prague German”–not even Hochdeutsch!–into English
2. J.M. Coetzee’s article “Kafka: Translators on Trial” in the May 14, 1998 issue of the New York Review of Books.
Dr. Ehrman,
In Gal. when Paul writes, “It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.” Does Paul mean that some of those receiving this message were witnesses to Jesus on the cross?
No, he’s referring to the Greek idea of ekphrasis, the graphic description of a scene that is so real that the person can “see” it.
Dr. Ehrman,
In Gal. 2:14 “…I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew…” How was Cephas acting like a Gentile?
He apparently at an earlier point was not strictly observing the law.
Dr. Ehrman,
When Paul writes, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.” Is this a reference to Jesus’ crucifixion? And if so, could it be that Jesus was not hung on a cross as usually pictured, but on an actual tree?
Yes, it definitely refers to crucifixion. And the wooden cross was known to have come from a tree, and so could be referred to as a tree. Paul is using the word tree because he is quoting the passage in the OT.
Dr. Ehrman,
How did Paul obtain his knowledge for the things he says in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18? Were these based on teachings Jesus gave before his death and then Paul learned them perhaps via Peter and James? Jewish culture? Mere speculation? Taught by the raised Jesus in a vision?
He never cites a source but it usually thought to be a view more widely shared in the early church of Christ returning to earth as king soon.
Dr. Ehrman,
1 Corinthians 16:21
Galatians 6:11
Philemon 19
As is claimed, do you think Paul literally and physically wrote these letters himself? In Gal. what was the purpose of the large letters? Did they have previous writings by Paul to compare it to for authenticity?
What appears to be happening is that Paul has dictated the letter, and at the end he signs off himself so his readers can know it’s really by him (since he had different writing from others.). We don’t know why he was writing large letters in particular; one popular theory is that he was going blind and the readers knew it (and some have suggested this is his thorn in the flesh). Maybe I’ll post on this down the line.
Dr. Ehrman,
This is the passage that Paul references in Gal….Did they crucify people in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE (when Deuteronomy was written) or where they hung on trees with rope? Does Paul make this parallel in order to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was his act of becoming a curse on our behalf?
Deuteronomy: “And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
It is referring to shaming an enemy by hanging their cadaver up on a tree for public humiliation. I assume they used ropes, yes.
Dr. Ehrman,
So then in Gal. 3:13 Paul is linking Jesus’ death on the cross to the shaming of an enemy by hanging their cadaver up on a tree for public humiliation, per Deut. 21:23? And Paul’s point being that Jesus became a curse for our sake? Is this all correct?
Yes, I’d say that’s fair to say.
Just writing for the practice. Read or delete as your time allows.
Translating the word ‘trespass’. Once I got caught in a discussion about Matt. 6:14, and the meaning of the word trespass. My concordances clearly say ‘a misstep’. Well, was I straighten out. One of the members brought out the latest edition (2020) of Merriam Webster dictionary and read me the meaning of trespass. At that time I did not have my 13 volume 1970 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary handy (the 1933 1st edition is not available) otherwise I would have read to them the use of trespass. Example “1553 T. Wilson Rhet. 49 Sometimes a man is accused of a felonye, and yet he proueth his offence to be but a trespace.” Shakespeare also used trespass many times showing the use of this word. My question to the world of Christians is when was the Bible inerrant? With the old use of trespass or the later use? If are use of trespass is correct today; meaning, murder, rape, paedophilia, etc. must be forgiven to enter heaven maybe the Bible was errant when it was first published.
Dr. Ehrman,
Of Paul’s authentic letters, 2 were written from prison; Philemon and Phil., yet what do you make of the ending of Romans?: “Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. Greet Andronicus and Junia,my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners.” (NRSV)
for one thing, it’s a mistranslation: the Greek speaks of “Junia” (a woman’s name), not Junias — which would be a man’s, since it’s masculine, but in fact it is not attested as a name. So he’s speaking of a man Andronicus and a woman Junia. He appears to be saying that they had been prisoners todgether once; they are probably not at the time he’s writing the letter since he appears to be free to travel.
Dr. Ehrman,
1 Clem. quotes from 1 Cor. Is this the earliest example of a writer quoting from one of Paul’s letters?
Where does he quote 1 Cor? he certainly knows about it, adn deals with many of the same topics as are in it.
Dr. Ehrman,
“… there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.” Do you think he gets the language of “first-fruits” from 1 Cor. 15? If so, is this good evidence that 1 Cor. is indeed a genuine letter by that goes back to Paul?
That’s not a quotation, though the one word ist he same (first fruits). yes, he probably does get it from 1 Cor. 15. And no, that has no bearing on the question of whether Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. (No one doubts he did, but the fact that a later author was familiar with the letter doesn’t relate to the question of who first wrote it)
Dr. Ehrman,
I had a discussion with someone who said that Paul didn’t think that Jesus died for the sins of the Jews. According to his undisputed letters, it certainly seems Paul thinks that Jesus died for the sins of Jews and Gentiles.
Here’s a key question, to the point: If Paul is solidly Jewish, and the Messiah does not die for sins, certainly Paul would have known that, so why does he write what he does in 1 Cor. 15:3? Or did the resurrection change everything for him, including what he thinks about sin?
I don’t know the answer to your question, but the point your dialogue partner made is common in scholarship (though a real minority view), that according to Paul the Law saves Jews and Christ saves Gentiles. I think it’s a complete misreading of Paul.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thanks, I thought that his view on Paul seemed a bit iffy. So you favor the more traditional reading, that Paul believes that Christ died for the sins i.e. moral transgressions of both Jews and Gentiles?
Paul thought sin was much much bigger than moral transgressions. Among other things, it was a powerful demonic force that enslaved people. but if your question is whether Jesus’ death brought salvation to both Jew and Gentile, in Paul’s view, absolutely yes. The reason that’s the traditional view is because it is what Paul says. Read Romans 3.
Dr. Ehrman,
When Paul writes in Romans, “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Does Paul mean that Abraham was saved by Jesus’ death on the cross, even though chronologically that event took place much later?
No, he simply means tthat Abraham was made right with God by trusting him, not by doing anything.
Dr. Ehrman,
According to Paul, if Abraham was made right with God by faith without Jesus included, then what is the importance of Jesus in that situation?
Abraham was looking *forward* to Jesus, so he could be saved by his faith.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was just watching an interview of you on what the earliest Christians believed about the afterlife. Is Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death…” a good verse to quote as proof that Paul thought that the un-saved would simply die, and not face eternal damnation?
Depends how you interpret “death.”
Dr. Ehrman,
Is there a solid example from Paul, perhaps a verse that would be good to point to in order to show he doesn’t believe in an eternal hell?
Do you mean a verse where he says “There is no hell”? No. I give the evidence he did not believe in hell in my book Heaven and Hell.
Dr. Ehrman,
What was the importance of Jesus being raised “on the third day?” per 1 Cor. 15:4
If fulfilled scripture: Hosea 6:3
Dr. Ehrman,
I think you may have meant Hosea 6:2? Was this text originally about resurrection or was this an example of proof-texting?
Proof texting. I must have had “3” on the brain. 🙂
Dr. Ehrman,
I was listening to a lecture where the professor was talking about Hosea 6:2 He said the number 3 has to do with revealing and victory. Is this correct? I’m wondering if these were the themes Paul was associating with as he writes “he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”?
I’m afraid I don’t now what he would be referring to.
Dr. Ehrman,
When Jesus returns presumably Paul thought that everyone including the Romans in Israel would see Jesus at that point and prepare for a confrontation, is that correct?
I don’t think Paul thought there would be an actual war with spears and swords, no.
Dr. Ehrman,
As far as Paul’s view of what takes place when Jesus returns, what happens to those who have not obtained salvation? When Jesus returns presumably Paul thought that everyone including the Romans in Israel would see Jesus at that point and prepare for a confrontation, is that correct? If not an actual, physical fight/war of some kind… what takes place?
They are destroyed by the wrath of God.