Loading...Among the interesting questions I’ve received recently from blog readers, two strike me as especially key for understanding how scholars make the claims they do; one of the questions challenges whether I have grounds to make one of the claims I do! Good questions. Some grounds (say, of coffee) are better than others. Here are the questions and my responses.
******************************
QUESTION
What is the process to assign a year to a text? For example, when you say that the earliest text of Matthew that we still have comes from 375 CE where do you get that date? Do the authors of the texts write the year? Thanks!
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!
On Luke 17:21, I note that in the many English translations at https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Luke%2017%3A21 , there’s no clear winner among “inside”, “within”, “among”, “in the midst of” etc.
Modern lexicons and bible translation reflect the views of Darbys work of the story he created inside of the bible, and of course everyone’s understanding of it today. This view started to creep into our understanding overtime. Even in academia especially in the US. Simply put it’s just popular “story” that became a scriptural fact. There are no factual evidence to show that it is was what Luke was conveying in his book. The first reference of ENTOS being referred to as “in the midst” was in Darby’s bible (1830’s) and later referred as such in his commentary. But no-one for 1800 years ever understood this way. It truly is a modern marginal note (in a lexicon) that became actual scripture. An example of this for demonstration is to look at the Liddell-Scott Geek English Lexicon eighth edition 1901. On page 488 (510/1798) you can clearly see the understanding of the word ENTOS (at that time), and not one reference to anything “exterior” just the opposite, and nowhere will you ever find such a reference in any material before Darby. RememberDarby just made it popular he didn’t invent the idea of what actually is a English language translation mistake.
I don’t think any Greek translator today pays the least attention to Darby. I knew the translators of the NRSV (I worked for the committee) and of the NRSVue (the two chairs are good friends), and I can assure you, Darby was the last thing on their minds. For this past group, I have a hard time imagining they even know about Darby’s Bible…
I can very much agree with that statement. I very much doubt any revision committee for the past century looks back any further than their last edition. Which is how these very issues come about, and just because they are unaware that it came from Darby does not mean it didn’t come from him, you were unaware of it when I told you. Yet they have this view, and you have this view. So? Where did it originate from? Any Greek Classists on this committee?? There is a complete disconnect somewhere between then and now. Oh, Bart the wrong you could right, the good justice you could do for author of Luke, and the future of peoples understanding of this passage with your knowledge and influence. It’s not too late to do so, but forever is. What an opportunity. Wasted? What you are holding on too, your view, is it more important than these things I mentioned ? Would you walk into a debate with your view, and the evidence you have of it? Or take the opposite view, and the evidence of it? No, there are not the same view, very much different.
Yes, for starters the chair of the committee Bruce Metzger, my mentor, had a PhD in Classics from Princeton University.
Yes I know, and let’s also keep in mind that the NRSV’s lineage is based on the ERV (1885) and the ASV (1901) both of which reflect Luke 17:21 as saying, “the kingdom of God is within you” statement. Then in 1952 when the RSV was published no explanation was given or any reference to at all as to why they changed Luke 17:21 from an interior existence to an exterior one, besides the obvious reinterpretation. Note that the NRSV committee still continues to keep the “inside” reference in its side notes, whereas almost all others translations have left it out completely. When I asked you about a Greek classicist, I was referring to the current board. But I’m not surprised to hear a statement such as that, because in most cases when they do make a new addition they typically do not spend much if any time at all in regards to anything pre-their last translation. Which is why we have these problems. That is why they call it versions, because it’s someone’s version of reality that appeals to their largest consumer base, and not reality itself.
Even though I don’t know Greek, I always suspected that “within” here really meant something like “among,” exactly for the reason you give: the object of the preposition is plural: “you.” (One thing I do like about the King James Version is that you can tell at a glance whether a given second person pronoun is singular or plural.)
Like the South, where I live, y’all….
Although only slightly related, I have often wondered how to die on Friday and rise on Sunday could ever be counted as 3 days. I realize the Jewish days end at sundown. Matthew, Mark and Luke place the death at the 6th hour. John states the sentencing by Pilate at the 6th hour with the crucifixion to follow and not necessarily on Friday. The women visited the tomb early morning on Sunday, the day after the Sabbath, with one day in between.
1. What is the significance of the 6th hour. How is that 3 days? It looks like 2 days.
2. I realize the prophesy was to destroy the temple and raise it up in 3 days. Is this the reason the Jesus is said to arise after 3 days?
We were always told in my student days that “Jews counted any part of a day as a full day,” but I don’t kno that that’s true. It appears that originally followers of Jesus was raised “on the third day” (which would work if he died on a Friday afternoon but arose on a Sunday morning) but that for some reason — maybe because of the connection with Jonah in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights — the sayings shifted so that it was “three days” even though the story continued to suggest something more like 36 hours. The prophecy of the temple came into being only after Christians were saying “three days.”
It’s definitely “on the third day” in the Nicene Creed — καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
Latin: et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas
English: On the third day He rose again, in fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Even in the much shorter Apostles’ Creed that we learned in my Presbyterian Sunday school, it’s “the third day”:
On the third day, he arose again from the dead.
I questioned this for almost 30 years- this was not 3 nights! or 2 + any more.
. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-40.htm
In drawings Jonah is depicted thrown overboard in the dark & on the beach in the morning facing Ninevah …
Bart’s book “Misquoting Jesus” is for sale on Amazon for $1.99 (the Kindle version).
Over 3,000 reviews with an average rating of 4.5. I think Bart says this is one of his most popular books.
If you don’t already own it, here it is at a great price.
(I have no connection to Bart except that I like to read his work.)
Dr. Ehrman,
Do we need a thin, muscular man dying and dead on a cross as an icon?
He resurrects and does not have an appearance greater than when he was alive–no concert/sermon of 5,000 and one?
What? A resurrected Jesus appears to a paltry 500? 500/5000 = 10% of his draw when he was alive, why not 5,500 or 10,000 with something even greater than The Lord’s Prayer and the Beatitudes? He resurrected and must have something sermonize. Jesus couldn’t fill a Temple festival or a Temple courtyard which brought tens if not hundreds of thousands to the Temple.
Did we learn about Early Christianity that Jewish Apocalypticism failed and we do not need another faith to give Christianity a nod?
The only thing Christianity really accomplished was making agape love higher than eros? You have left me with the conclusion that Jesus and Early Christianity did not promise us an afterlife of heaven. Basically, you’re saying, if you think Jesus is saving your soul to heaven, that is an error.
A failed apocalyptic prophet that’s been dragging us on for thousands of years is the goal?
Steefen
Bart wrote:n”So, to interpret the word, you first learn what the word usually means, often means, sometimes means, and occasionally means.”
Along a similar line, Bart has explained how “Jew” is short for Judean, someone from Judea as opposed to a Galilean from Galilee. Could this have had any influence on the birth narratives making Jesus’ birthplace Bethlehem in Judea instead of Nazareth in Galilee, making Jesus technically a Judean, not a Galilean, and therefore a more “proper” Jew?
Ah, good questoin. The problem is that “Jew” is not short for Judean but an alternative translation of the same word. That is, there is one word in Greek, and it can be translated either way — so that even “Jews” born and living in Rome or anywhere else were called “Judeans” (= Jews).
From my uneducated point of view, among makes less sense than within, even speaking to a group of pharisees. If the kingdom of God is an enlightened state of mind or profound understanding, or a spark of the divine, he would be including all of humanity including the pharisees. What would be the meaning to say it’s not here or there but it is among you?
Yes, that’s pretty much the issue. The kingdom of God for Jesus is not an enlightented stated or profound understanding — it is an actual kingdom that is coming to earth, a utopian place and rule that people can either enter into if they are on God’s side or be excluded rom if they are not.
So : theology as we choose to understand it (perhaps because it comes from the influence of a truly revered scholar) must trump the use of a word which in every other usage within the NT , the OT and other Greek sources has a pretty clear meaning. Luke 20,21 is one of Luke’s exclusive materia and might just represent a real saying (by criterion of embarrassment?) that couldn’t be left out. (Pax Thomas 3.) The Pharisees might be a drop in for a story that is placed here to be near the subsequent more orthodox following verses (22-37).
Luke is different in many significant ways (the descent of Jesus’ mandate in 3:21 (21 again!?) seems to negate the immediate presence of John (which indicates (?) why John sent out his disciples to question Jesus later 7: 20 -missed by one!).
I wonder if it isn’t correct to be on the track of an earlier gospel embedded in Luke.
I”m not sure what you’re saying. (I think you’re suggesting I’m doing theology instead of history/philology?) (If so, *that* would be interesting!)
Not instead of, but informed by. Your choice of use for entos is guided by the assessment of ‘that which we call Jesus’ that identifies him as an eschatologist. That’s why I would lean to ‘inside of’, as if the word doesn’t have to fit a context (theology).
That’s also why I wonder if the two relevant verses didn’t come from elsewhere/when and were put here to make them conform, by association, to the subsequent verses spoken to the apostles. (Much as I wonder if it, in a fuller form, is grafted into Thomas 3.)
I’m not sure about Homer. I’m loath to use the grammer of Thomas Aquinas to rule on today’s English (about the same time lag). On the other hand, if you tell me you are going to be somewhere inside Madison Square Gardens, tomorrow, I’m not going to deconstruct the walls to look for you. All the other uses for entos I’ve seen referred to need to stretch the word by applying it to another background (theology?).
And, didn’t you declare yourself an atheist (as do I)? Not theology? Not relevant to how you do your history/philology?
Sorry, I’m not doing theology in any sense. I’m interpreting a word based on its wider usage in Greek in light of its immediate context. I have no theological stake in the matter. I’m trying to understand what it would mean in the Lukan context. That is philological exegesis.
Really enjoyed that translation explanation – it clarified this example very well in a way that’s accessible to us lay people.
This question I asked and the “grounds” I stand on are still the same today, in that factuality speaking nowhere before the 1850’s can you ever find anywhere the word ἐντός ever being used in any other way than to mean “inside.” Luke 17:21 is a very particular verse that a “general” approach to translation does not adequately serve it”s definition of the proper meaning. The English language that didn’t even exist at the time of Lukes writing does not re-define or change the meaning of passages, nor dose a very popular bible and commentary by John Darby change the meaning of the New Testament either. This is not a theological or religious view. It is a fact, that know-one on this planet who has this view has yet so far been able to demonstrate otherwise, but rather instead use vague, contextual stacking, theological biases that prove nothing as an answer. This is just like the “generation” argument in Matt 24 where all of the sudden generation means something other than just that. I still challenge Prof. Erhman and anyone else to find ANY proof that supports this “midst” view in Luke 17:21.
I’ve already shown that this is not true (entos is used of people who are “within” the walls of a city, as one example, going back to Homer, but that doesn’t mean they are stuck in there with the rocks and mortar). I understand that you don’t think so, and you’ve made your strong case, so I’d suggest we move on to other topics.
I see you have looked into this issue further, and I am glad to receive your view. But this is the first time you have ever shared with ME this or any other example like it pertaining to the word ENTOS. I know you have a-lot of members though. If I would have heard of this earlier I would have taken it into account as (I) though exhaustive research have never found anything definitive to suggest ENTOS had any other meaning to anything external like you are suggesting. This is not a religious or theological view of mine Bart it is a fact based on evidence which is all I care about. And in your reference to (Homer’s Illiad, yes?) I don’t find at all your explanation to be convincing towards your view at all, but rather mine. ENTOS “inside” but you are claiming Luke 17:21 is “in the midst” which is EN MESOS as demonstrated by the author before and after Chapter 17.? Are you saying Homer is referring specifically to the inside of the actual wall, and not inside of the walls of the city as Homer is describing ? Is this a new revelation?
Nope, I mentioned it before. But it don’t signify. If you know Greek, just look it up in Lidell-scott and you’ll see a number of instances more or less like this.
Please provide a date of the article, I would like to read this reply. In the original eighth edition (1901) the Lidell-Scott nowhere mentions ἐντός with any such reference as to “among” or “midst” nothing exterior. So if a later addition of the same publisher has an additional or different description of the word ἐντός, where did it originate from, and why is this translation completely missing from all of it’s previous editions? Which brings us back to my previous question of people that hold this view of ἐντός as being “among” or “in the midst” or anything exterior that is completely void of any explanation or reference as to what work are the citing. So far the only answer to this question is Darby‘s Bible and commentary. It is the only work that can be pointed to for over 1800 years that would explain where this “among” reference in Luke 17:21 came from. There are no manuscripts, commentaries, bibles or works anywhere, in any language that I have found pre-1850’s that would reflect this type of translation. I have asked you, and numerous others to site just one reference to a pre-Darby work, and no-one can.
You’d be amazed how many linguistic views have been established by schgolars that were not around before teh 1830s.
I don’t have a dated list of my reply to comments, but I suppose you could find it by looking it up.
Excellent post, on a related note I’ve been pondering the common teachings around divorce and many Christians saying it can only happen if sexual immortality occurs, citing Mark 10. While I completely disagree with that take, it mostly got me thinking on if we are understanding the original Greek term properly, or translating it to English correctly? It appears we have inserted adultery for “moicheia (μοιχεία) ” and from my limited understanding the original Greek seems to insinuate something other than just cheating on your spouse?
Mark 10:11-12 actually says that anyone who divorces his wife and then remarries commits adultry, and if the woman divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery. It is Matthew’s version (19:9) that adds an exceptoin clause, to the first instance: any man that divorces his wife except for adultery and marries another commits adultery. Luke has Mark’s version but when it comes to the woman, she commits adultery simply by divorcing, without getting remarried. The verb MOICHAO does normally mean to commit an act of infidelity by having sex with someone other than your spouse.
Oof I really bungled that citation! Thank you as always for your insight and interaction Bart, and thank you for the clarification on MOICHAO.
A very interesting and informative post, Professor. You covered a lot of ground and did it well.
I really don’t understand why it was a big deal whether woman woe head coverings in church or not. I know when I was old enough to notice things like that in the fifties, they were still doing it. That rule went the way of that proscribing birth control pills.
I suppose for religious and cultural reasons, just as in some Islamic countries today.
Prof. Ehrman,
Does the full text of 1 Cor. 15:1-11 appear legible in the earliest manuscript of 1 Cor.?
Are you asking if the ink is faded? I believe the earliest ms of 1 Cor. is P46 which does have 15:1-11. You could actually look it up on line to check it out!