Loading...I’ve been talking about translations of the Bible — especially the King James Version — and I’d like now to move to a broader issue. EVERY text from the ancient world needs to be translated in order to be made accessible to a modern audience. Hey, we’re not back in the 19th century when going to university meant learning Greek and Latin! And texts even then also came from even other languages (Hebrew, Coptic, Syriac, etc.).
If you’re a graduate student in antiquity, you have to learn to read these texts in their original languages; you simply can’t get the nuances of a text — especially a fairly sophisticated one dealing with, say, philosophy or religion — in translation. And translators have to make decisions about how to translate a text. It’s not a mechanical process. Whether you like it or not — most people when they learn of this don’t much like it, and even more people have never learned of it — translation is also an act of interpretation. You have to know what a text means before you can render it into a different language, and the only way to know what a text means is to interpret it.
I’ve known that since college, when I started taking Greek. But I didn’t realize the full significance of it for years and years, until I started publishing translations of ancient texts. My first experience was about fifteen years ago now, when I was asked to do a new edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library. I’ve talked about that a bit on the blog before, and now want to devote some more sustained attention to it. Here I’ll give some background on that project (my Apostolic Fathers translations) and the series it appeared in (the Loeb Classical Library) and in the next post I’ll talk about the difficulties of producing a translation.
First, the Loeb Classical Library. Some readers of the blog will be familiar with this valuable resource, but most others have probably never heard of it. The Loebs are bi-lingual editions of ancient Greek and Latin authors – all of the major (and most of the minor) authors of ancient Greece and Rome (Homer, Euripides, Plutarch, Cicero, Livy, Seneca and on and on and on). They are set up to have the original language and an English translation on facing pages (so the Greek or Latin is on the left page and the English translation on the right, when you open up the volume on any random page). Under the original language is a small apparatus indicating places where different manuscripts have different ways of wording the text.
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!
The Loeb volumes are an enormously valuable resource for scholars and students with facility in Greek and Latin; if you are working through a text and want to know what the original language actually says, these volumes make it all very easy. (Many [most?] high-level scholars think it’s “cheating,” or at least “second-rate” to use a Loeb edition of an author instead of an edition that gives only the original Greek or Latin text.)
There are not very many Christian authors included in the Loebs, but one of the very first volumes published (in 1912: the first year any were published) was the two-volume edition of the Apostolic Fathers, produced by the Harvard scholar of early Christianity, Kirsopp Lake. When I was in graduate school, all of us knew about and had these two volumes. They were essential possessions for anyone in the field of early Christian studies.
I’ve talked about “Apostolic Fathers” before on the blog, but not for a long time at any great length. Many people have a confused understanding of what the term refers to. It is, in fact, a technical term to refer to a specific corpus of writings by a group of ten or eleven authors writing after the New Testament period. As it turns out (somewhat weirdly) there is no unanimity concerning which authors these should be, although everyone agrees on the main ones. The most generous view includes the following writings: 1 Clement, 2 Clement, the seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the letter of Polycarp, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the letter to Diognetus, and the fragments of Papias and of Quadratus.
They are called “apostolic fathers” because in the early modern period it was widely – but incorrectly – thought that these authors were companions of the apostles. And so they were the earliest church fathers whose writings survived. Today we have serious reasons for thinking that in fact none of them knew any of the first-generation apostles of Jesus. But they are our earliest proto-orthodox authors from outside the New Testament. The term “proto-orthodox” is a bit complicated, but I need to explain it before going any further for those who aren’t familiar with it.
The term “orthodox” means “right belief” or “correct opinion.” It stands over /against “heterodox” which means “another opinion” (i.e., a view that is, by definition wrong, since it is not the “right opinion”!). A synonym for heterodoxy is “heresy,” a word that means “choice.” A “heretic” is someone who “chooses” to believe something that is wrong. It should be crystal clear to anyone familiar with historical discourse that these are problematic terms, historically, since historians have no way of knowing which religious beliefs are “right” and which ones are “wrong.” Those are theological judgments, not historical ones.
Yet historians continue to use the terms “heresy” and “orthodoxy.” When they do so, they are not indicating which beliefs are right (e.g., that there is only one God; that Christ is both fully God and fully man, not just one or the other; that the world is the creation of the one God, etc.) and which ones are wrong. They are instead indicating which beliefs ended up being declared “orthodox” (right) and which ones “heretical” (wrong). And so calling an early Christian “orthodox” simply means saying that s/he accepted the views that ended up becoming dominant in the religion. Orthodoxy came into a position of dominance by the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century. But what do we call Christians who held to the views that were later deemed orthodox in earlier periods? These Christian authors are typically referred to as “proto-orthodox” – to distinguish them from writers living after the time orthodox views had emerged. The earliest proto-orthodox writers we have are the ones that were later grouped by scholars (starting in the 17th century) into the collection that I’m referring to here as the apostolic fathers.
All of these authors wrote in Greek – although in a few places we do not have Greek manuscripts but only Latin translations (e.g., the end of the letter of Polycarp). Kirsopp Lake’s edition was a standard work for years and years. But in the late 1990s, Harvard University Press wanted to have an updated edition, since Lake’s by that time was out of date, for lots of reasons. And they asked me to do them. (I’ve talked about how that happened recently on the blog: it was an act of pure serendipity. The post is here: How Serendipity Changed My Life: The Apostolic Fathers – The Bart Ehrman Blog )
The experience of doing so had a significant affect on my life and thinking, and showed me in very real and concrete terms the problems facing translators of ancient texts (whether classical, biblical, non-canonical –Christian), problems that are somewhat different (oddly) from those facing those who can read the languages but aren’t publishing a translation of them.
Hi Bart,
Question involving mostly OT, so not sure it’s in your realm, but I’ll give it a shot:
I’m an astrologer who points out to argumentative Christians that Gen 1:14 states God created planets as *signs.* (It’s a symbolic language that can be read if one knows the meanings of the symbols.)
I don’t have the citations at hand, but various OT verses prohibit divination (which I argue astrology is not); some versions of the bible specifically state “astrology.” A Deut verse often mentioned seems really about the Israelites worshiping other gods and one gathers they misused certain esoteric tools. In another, “your astrologers can’t save you” – but astrologers can’t save anyone. That’s not the point of astrology.
Then in the NT, Jesus tells his followers that there will be signs in the sky, and even “signs in sun and moon and stars” (Luke 22:25). One wonders how anyone can know what the signs mean if no one is allowed to practice astrology.
The supposed biblical proscription against astrology has always felt false to me, and I’ve often wondered what the original texts really say (i.e., what the original words mean). Can you speak to this?
I”ve never studied it much, but which translations are you referring to that use the term “astrology”? ANd which verses. As you point out, one big question is what the original language means, and whether it means what the english word astrology means.
Prof Ehrman,
Way off topic, are you familiar with the recently published book by Yonathon Adler documenting his research, that supports his hypothesis that Judaism wasn’t widely practiced until the second century B.C.E.?
Here’s an article for reference https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/is-judaism-a-younger-religion-than-previously-thought-180981118/
What are your thoughts?
No, don’t know it. I suppose it depends on what he means by “Judaism” and by “widely practiced.” I’d say “Judaism” was widely practiced in Israel during the Maccabean period, e.g,; or in Egyptian communities in the days of Philo; or …. or whatever.
He meant being Torah observant following dietary laws, no graven, images, monotheism, etc.
In the last chapter of the book the author conjectures the Maccabees imposed Torah observance on the land they conquered, and that’s when it began. All the other chapters the author says are data driven. He mentioned an Egyptian community too.
OK, thank. Yes, the Macabean revolt came about becaus lots of Jews were happy to be Hellenized. I’m not sure how one could know what most people (Jews) on the ground were doing throughout the Roman world, since we have no real evidence for 99% of them. There certainly were polemics against Jews for their practices and it was assumed among non-Jews that there were strange customs they followed, but I don’t really know. Sound like an interesting book.
On the nature of translation as “also an act of interpretation,” Emily Wilson, a classicist who published an English translation of the Odyssey a few years back, has written several twitter threads illustrating the point in clear and understandable ways. They are most enlightening. She has collected links to her threads at the web page below; each link on her page takes you to the start of a single thread. They may be interesting to readers here, or even to yourself, Dr. Ehrman, if you haven’t seen these already. (Examples are from Homer, of course, rather than from Biblical texts.)
https://www.emilyrcwilson.com/emilyrcwilson-scholia
Thanks! Her translation of the Odyseey is superb.
Just curious about the Apostolic Fathers. What was their background, what usually made them convert to Christianity, and did their backgrounds effect their theological views?
I wish we knew! We don’thave any biographies, so anything we “know” must be inferred from their writings. All of them appear to be ighly educated gentiles; apart from that, we are pretty much hamstrung.
Dr. Ehrman,
I am aware This is off topic, but I have been reading James Tabor’s ”Paul and Jesus”. I know your own views differ from his in several ways, particularly in regards to Paul’s understanding of Resurrection. I was wondering, however, if you have read this book and what you think about his contributions to our understanding of Paul, generally?
I certainly looked at it when it came out, but it wasn’t really to do a deep analysis. I’m happy to address any particular issues you’re wondering about.
I guess, specifically what I am wondering is if you agree with Tabor that the core of Paul’s message was the creation of a new heavenly family through the process of being foreknown, predestined, called, justified and ultimately glorified, and if this message was as radically different from the Jerusalem Church as has been suggested?
I don’t remember the precise details of how he works out Paul’s core message, and suspect that it’s terribly difficult to summarize in a sentence. My view is that Paul’s message was very different from the Jerusalem apostle’s before him, but ti was not because he invented/supported a new way of looking at God/divnity/heavenly realm etc per se, though he did come to conclusions that we have no reason to think they held — in particualr that Christ was a pre-existent divine being who became human in order to suffer and die (rather than that he was a human chosen by God to do so). But his main difference was far more down to earth, so to say: he insisted that following the Jewish messiah did not require a person to be Jewish, so that gentiles too could experience the salvation God had brought. That may seem like a rather obvious and small thing to us, but it was HUGE and ended up leading to the possibility that the Christian faith could take over the world and develope much more radically theologically.
It seems he leans into ED sanders view that Pauls core theology is participation with a newly divined being. Eating the flesh of a god to gain their powers and all sorts of participation language show up in his letters including in contexts you wouldn’t expect it. He fleshes it out more in https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Ascent-Paradise-Apostolic-Experiences/dp/B08GB52LTN It seems to me it is an “underlying current” throughout all of Paul’s theology in his letters.
Reading between the lines I cant help but feel he disagreed with the disciples on a lot more than just law. Paul was speaking greek they were speaking aramaic and its not inconceivable he was really preaching a new god while they were preaching a risen messiah. Looking at all the ways he asserts his independent authority, his *superior* authority, the language he uses to pull his congregations away from following them and towards himself without being too blatant it makes sense he isn’t as explicit about the full breadth of his dispute with them. Paul is the kind of a guy to make a prophecy that doesn’t pan out, selectively misquote scripture to his unlettered audience, get accused of dodgy financial behavior. Should we trust him unconditionally?
Historians don’t trust any source unconditionally. But distrust on a particular issue always bears a particular burden of proof. And we need to be careful about the category of “misquoting” Scripture since ancient forms of citation and interpretation were so different from ours (think about how later Rabbis used Scripture!). In any event, he certainly *may* have disagreed with the Jerusalem disciples on more topics, but if he did he didn’t mention it, and given his irrascible character, that would be at least a *bit* of a surprise…
As a multidisciplinary scholar, I deeply appreciate translations of all sorts of material written in contemporary English 🙂
Hi Dr. Ehrman,
Random minor question.
I’ve always heard that the translation of “Messiah” into Greek is Χριστός. However, in gJohn I see another word that gets translated into “Messiah” in English, Μεσσίας. What is this other word, why does it also get translated into “Messiah”, and why does it only appear in gJohn?
If it appears as “messiah” in an English translation it would *normally* mean that the ancient author, writing Greek, put the Hebrew word in Greek letters (e.g., when you find “maranatha” an Aramaic word). What passage(s) are you referring to?
John 4:25 but I think I get it now.
So, Christos is the Greek *translation* of the Hebrew word for Messiah, whereas the other word is the Greek *transliteration* then. Neat.
Bart: How accurate do you think the english definitions of Koine Greek are? Not just english but all other languages also. Is there a language that you feel would most convey the kione greek definition best?
Can placement of a declension in a sentence change the definition.. Romans 2:14 puts this to the test with use of Nomon, Nomou and Nomos. The context of the passage leads me to believe that there is a difference in the source of the declination thus a different definition of Nomos. I believe Origen wrote about a correct understanding of Nomos in the book of Romans. If so… Mathew 5:17-18 changes greatly. So could an author intentionally place a declination into a certain part of a sentence to express his meaning of the word?
Elaine Pagels thought my arguent for different definitions of these declenations might have merrit if argued correctly… Thus why I’m questioning about the particular placement and declenation might modify definition. (You may remember my email some time back questioning such definitions. but not based on placement in sentance) The septaugint translats Jer 31:34 “my laws” as Nomou. Pauls continuation in vs 15 draws line to Jer 31:34.
I don’t think there’s any langage that is particularly well suited for translation of ancient Greek of any kind (koine, Homeric, classic, etc.) As to different declensions: I think you mean different “cases” (nomos is first declension whichever form you fimd it in). The case of a substantive does not change its meaning at all. It is teh way you put the word in relation to other words in a sentence in inflected languages, where you do not use word order to show how one word relates to another. Authors can indeed use the same word to mean different things — they do so all the time. So you have to determine the meaning from the context (but not the case). Nomos is indeed an excellent illustration in Paul, and a famous problem: sometimes he means the Law of moses, sometimes he means a general principle, sometimes he means a dictate of God not found int he Torah, etc. How do you know which is which? Through a very careful analysis of the context of each usage. That is, by exegesis = textual interpretation.
What really raised the question for me is when using the intralinear of biblehub and looking at all of the instances that Nomon and Nomou were used in the NT then examining the context and author. In other words how did each author insert these words into his context. What was most obvious was that such is widely used in what appears to be contrasting differt source of laws.. Romans 2 is very obvious of Paul contrasting mutiple sources of law, (ie the torah, law from God, Law one themselves lives by), and again in Mathews 5″:17-18. Based on your reply the authors could easily have used the same cases if not wanting to contrast. Nomon (the law) is most used when referring to Law and Prophets “Torah” and Nomou is used where the “my law” of Jer 31:34 could be easily inserted into the text.
Each author has their own way of contrasting law.. For Paul if Nomon is “torah” and Nomou is “my law” in Rom 2 it shows Paul teaching a New Covenant with “my law” separate from Torah.. It is why I cannot eliminate Paul as author of Hebrews. Turns Mathew 5 upside down.
Nomon and Nomou are the same word. They look different, but they are only different in the sense that if you way, “The law was given by God and Moses was the human giver of the law.” The “law” means the same thing. But one is a noun used in the nominitive case as the subject of the verb “was given” and the other it is in the genitive case as the object of the preposition “of”. In English you know that by word order, in Greek by changing the ending. Changing the the ending to make it nominitive, accusative, dative, or genitive doesn’t change the meaning of the word; it changes how ot functions grammatically in the sentence so you can tell if it’s a subject, direct object, indirect object, object of a preposition, etc. — just as word order does in English.
Here is something that really drove my thinking on the words… The last 3 letters of Nomon “mon” is ” single, alone or just “lone” translaters sometimes insert “the” into the translation So it looked to me as description of the law as being the law of the single God of Abraham…
In Nomou, the last 3 letters “mou” define as “My”, thus in Hebrews 8 the author uses Nomou in the greek copy of Jeremiah 31:34 (Septuagint actually uses plural “nomous” duplicating the hebrew text of Jeremiah 31:34
Outside of Pauls writings Nomou is used just a couple of times.. but Paul is by far the most prolific user of Nomou. Its hard to imagine him just by chance in Romans 2 14 linking nomou to the Heart in vs 15. After so much it doesn’t seem plausable that Paul used nomou just as funtion of Grammer of his sentence..
I know that strict Koine grammatical construction doesn’t provide for varying definition, but at some point coinceidence is not a coincidence.. I still think Pauls uses was to make sure people got the point of his message
OK, I”m trying to explain that this kind of analysis just doesn’t work in Greek. I’m afraid this isn’t just an opinion of mine. You can ask any scholar of Greek and they will tell you exacly the same thing. Mon meaning “single” and mou meaning “my” is absolutely and completely unrelated to the question of what nomon and nomou mean. One thing to realize is that every single noun of the second declension in Greek (every one — thousands of them!) end in mon or mou when put in the genitive. The “m” is part of the root and the -ou or -on is simply the indication that the noun is genitive or ablative. Really, truly: they do NOT change the meaning of the word.
Have you thought about learning Greek? It would be a good way to start.
OK… after time to really disect your reply, and further references on case and grammatical structure the composition rules you’re giving makes sense.. I have disected the greek Roman 2: 14-15 and Mathew 5:17-18 and saw how the case’s apply.
In my previous comment about the ending 3 letters of nomou having a definition the pronoun “My” I found the following regarding genitives in Koine Greek
//In Koiné Greek, the genitive case ending serves a wide variety of functions. Most commonly, it expresses possession, meaning that the term containing the genitive case ending possesses (in some way) the word it describes. However, it can also express other meanings as well.//
So does the last 3 letters (mou) of Nomou being the pronoun (my) describe the Law as the possession of the pronoun “my”? That the source or origin of the law is “My”?
Now this is a far stretch, but could Nomon having the pronoun “mon/one” as its last 3 letters actually be genitive case rather than accusitive case.. I said it was a stretch.. But if then genitive case, the orgin of the law was from one lone unique source. Not a person.
my last try with this subject….
No, mou meaning “my” or “mon” meaning one has literally zero relevance to the meaning of the word. Greek just doesn’t work that way.
My thinking may not apply to the Language itself I agree. But I still find it intregueing that Pauls phrasing makes use of the genitive Nomou so much.
In Rms 2 and 3 Paul is separating two laws… He is establishing a new law (2:15) separate from the Torah. The Jews have the Torah, and the Gentiles have law from God instilled in their hearts (Jer 31:34). In 2:16 declares that this law within themselves is judged as rightiousness at day of Judgement… Later in the letter he teaches freedom from “the law” (torah). Thus he’s teaching two laws. law written in torah and law written upon heart. So when I look at (not read) the greek I notice that “Nomou” appears to reflect the law in the heart. If you replace “heart” in the english text for where nomou is translated it read very well that way.
Is 2:14 less confusing when reading in greek? If not then how would someone listening to the greek be able to separate out what source of law Paul meant? The phraseology he is using possibly with the Genitive Case. See how the Pronoun “My” fits into that?
Get a Greek grammar — for example Smyth — and look up genitive in the index, and you’ll see why Paul uses it so much. It’s massively common in Greek and it never changes the lexical meaning of the word itself.disabledupes{01715a6ec8ec157c3fe880d3ba65d3a2}disabledupes
Continuation:
In looking how authors use Nomou, Luke/Acts uses Nomou clearly when the “torah” in the source of law. But not in Pauls accepted writings.. You can insert “My Law” sourced into mans heart as the source of the law Paul is refering to in all cases. It’s just theologians insert the “torah” as being the source. Hebrews 7 the Nomou existed before the Torah. The author of James 2 uses Nomon clearly as the torah, and Nomou can easily be interpreted as a law from a different source within the text. The author of John only uses Nomon once and not in any context of contrast definiately meaning torah. Mathew only uses in passages where Jesus could easily be contrasting laws, In all authors the use of “nomon” seems to point definitively towards the “Torah”.
I’m thinking Jerome may have noticed this as well but I have not read is exposition of pauls letters.
Interesting topic that I can imagine can be challenging. I can imagine that not only the translation would cause challenges, but also understanding biblical texts that contain poetry, a whole lot of narratives, prose discourses, meditative literature etc, and based on that , understanding the chosen plot, its characters in that relationship, its symbolism, its allegories, understood in the proper historical culture and context etc., etc.
Interesting to take into consideration. Thank you for this post !
I took latin my freshman year in high school and got a “D” in it… Engish I got a C- in. Obviously my skills in language art is lacking. Made up for with math and science. I have an extrodinary IQ testing a fair amount over 160 with a Son got every MENSA test question correct in less than half the allotted time. They have no idea what his IQ is.He failed his english class in high school… My point obviously being Language Arts skills don’t run in our DNA.
So recently I’ve just been going to what is availible about Koine Greek on the internet about the narrow area of Greek I have questions about. A class may prove a waist of time and effort. Both my Son and I learn things at a very accelerated pace. Example is where my Son failed an English semester… he retook the full year english course in self paced night school and finished both semesters with an A+ in just 3 evenings… So when you tell me about the greek language, I’m looking deep at what you write, then dig deeper into what I don’t readily understand. I did software design
The only languages I’ve formally learned in a class setting are Greek, Hebrew, and German. The others I’ve picked up completely on my own. It reaslly doesn’t matter *where* you learn a language so much as you learn it correctly. Greek grammar is greek grammar! But some languages are trickier than others without a good instructor around to correct your mistakes.