Loading...I recently discussed how I became a secretary for the New Revised Standard Version translation committee as a grad student. Several people have asked me what I think of the translation, and if I have any problems with it. My answer is pretty straightforward and comes in two parts: I think it is the best Bible translation out there and I have lots of problems with it. (!) The reality is that *every* Bible scholar has *lots* of problems with virtually every Bible translation. Even the best.
Generally speaking, I have two kinds of problems with the NRSV: some have to do with the translation itself, others have to do with the Greek reading that the translators decided to translate. I’ll deal with the first set of problems in two posts, and second in the next two posts.
Every biblical scholar will have problems with the way translators have rendered this, that, or the other passage. Scholars disagree on everything! (Well, almost everything.) There are a few passages that have always irritated me from the NRSV. If I dug harder, I’m sure I would find others. (I almost never read the English Bible, and so I don’t try to track down problems; like most scholars I tend to read the Bible – especially the NT, my area of expertise, in the original language). But here, for what it’s worth, is one of them. It’s one of those things that seems like a small and insignificant detail but has some rather interesting and even important significance.
John 3:22: “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside.”
“The Judean countryside”???? This is a mistranslation and I think it was probably motivated by a desire to keep John from sounding like it contains a discrepancy. I sometimes have my students look at John 2:23-3:22 and to explain the geography. Because in fact the geography doesn’t seem to “work.” In 2:23 Jesus is in Jerusalem. While there, in Jerusalem, starting in 3:1, he has a conversation with the rabbi Nicodemus. He finishes this conversation in 3:21. And then we have the curious statement that the NRSV has mistranslated. But the Greek actually says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea.” (It is correctly translated in the RSV on which the NRSV is based.)
And why does this translation matter? Because, of course, Jerusalem itself is in the land of Judea. And so it makes no sense to say that after his discussion with Nicodemus Jesus went into the land of Judea, since he is already there! You get a similar problem in John 5 and 6; Jesus is in Jerusalem in chapter 5, and then at the beginning of ch. 6 we are told that he went to “the other side” of the Sea of Galilee. Well, he can’t go to the “other side” of the lake unless he is already on one of the sides, but according to the account, he is not – he is way down south, many miles away, in Jerusalem!
The reason for both of these geographical mistakes: the author of the Fourth Gospel has utilized various sources for his account and has spliced them together. When he has done so, he has inadvertently left “literary seams” that show what he has done. Almost no one notices these things unless someone points them out to them. But there they are.
But in the NRSV there is no problem any longer, because of the mistranslation (of 3:22) (6:1 is a problem even there – – there’s no way to get around the geographical faux pas by retranslating the passage in that case). The Greek of 3:22 says that they went into the “land” (GHN) of Judea, not into the Judean “countryside” (XWRIS). This matters because if in fact Jesus and his disciples went into the countryside, it simply means that they left the city and went to the rural places outside. No contradiction. But if translated correctly, there is in fact a discrepancy. And I think there is no doubt at all about why the translators changed the RSV in this case. It was precisely to eliminate the possibility of the geographical discrepancy. But in mistranslating the phrase, they have done more harm than good. IMHO.
When I read such remarks, I can’t help but think how distorted these books must be. If just one tiny alteration -such as the one you mention- was made, say, every once in a couple of months, beginning in the first century, by now we would have like a hundred thousand alterations of this sort! Of course, your post is about a translation, but my point is more general, it refers to alterations in general: little phrases, little words here and there, removal of names, adding of names etc. I can’t help but think how much different the originals must have been. Would it be an exaggeration to suggest that the originals could have been like 70% different than the books we have now? I know you very much dislike playing the “guess the percentage game”, but very very roughly, if you *had* to speculate and say a number, where would you stand approximately? Alterations of words, phrases, names, passages and so forth, not typos and side effects of sleepy scribes.
It’s a complicated question, since even if a mistake was made say every month, there’s nothing to require that the mistake was copied by a later copyists, or by many other later copyists, so the entire textual tradition would not have been from then on incorrect. My guess is that the vast majority of words we have in the Greek New Testament were the words the authors wrote, but it’s just an educated guess and not one I would want to stake my life on, let alone my eternal life.
Hm. The Swedish version has “land of Judea”. Point for us!
Just got Joshua Bowen’s guide to the Old Testament. He strays into the New Testament a little on the question of slavery. He argues that the New Testament does not condemn slavery. What is your position on this and could you write a post on it?
It certainly does not condemn slavery, no. But of course ancient slavery was a very different phenomenon than modern (not race based, e.g.; most slaves were prisoners of war or people who had sold themselves into slavery to pay debts and so on)
Ancient slavery was not based on race… except for in Israel.
Leviticus 25: 44-46.
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
This is not what we thnk of as race.
You must admit that the letter to Philemon turned the institution of slavery upside down?
I don’t think it did at all. Paul never says anythihng, for example, about setting Onesimus free, let alone all slaves everywhere. The way I read the letter is that Paul is actually asking Philemon to gift Onesimus to *him*.
I just checked the verse in my German “Einheitsübersetzung”, and it also simply says, “they went to Judea”. Not even a footnote about the geographical discrepancy.
Anyhow, I can hardly imagine that a modern-day reader would stumble over the discrepancy. Who knows the geography of that area so well, and then stops to think about it? I’m surprised that modern-day translators make the effort to modify the text to smooth it over.
Come to think of it, the Greek-speaking original readers of the Gospel of John were probably also not that familiar with the geography of Israel and Judea, given that they probably lived in other parts of the Roman empire.
* The Galilean Yeshua [Jesus]-if he really uttered what had been recorded in sermon on the mountain-had actually condoned slavery ⛓when he instructed that when someone enslaves [forces] you to go one mile, go two instead.
It can slip through the mind based on the translation but it was not only surrendering to forced labor, it was actually encouraging your abuser to take double advantage of you.
The more proper instructions regarding the Roman 🇮🇹Soldiers-if it was really needed-should have been specific & say like this “ Always try to stay away from foreign soldiers who might forces you to labor a mile, but if he finds you, try to excuse because of your health limitation & inability to complete the task, if this doesn’t work, don’t fight him because you will get in more physical pain. Just seek your leader or his master to absolve you from such. If this doesn’t work, while doing the labor, show your athletic limitation & then disappear immediately from sight once the mile has been completed”
Another very enlightening post. Clearly there is temptation to make the translation read with logic that is ‘correct’ and avoid discontinuities in the originals.
Can I ask how scholars such as yourself access the biblical manuscrpts to read them in the original Greek? Is there a database of high resolution scans (or physical copies), or do you access the physical originals? Do meaningful translation issues ever arise purely from legibility problems with the originals?
Almost always we read a published edition of the Greek NT that has been constructed on the basis of the surviving manuscripts, with an apparatus indicating where different manuscripts word the text differently. If we want to take a look at mss ourselves, there are several important online sites, including hte Institute for NT Textual Research in Muenster Germany and the Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts in Dallas
Ideas for future posts: What is the original language version of the NT? Presumably it is compiled from various manuscripts. Who compiled it? Is there a universally accepted version? What are its origin and revision history?
Also, there is a new translation of the Gospels by Sarah Ruden that has attracted favorable attention. Maybe this is worth a review (Guest Post?). Mark chapters 1 – 6 is available at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Gospels-Modern-Library-Sarah-Ruden/dp/0399592946/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=sarah+ruden&qid=1621195896&sr=8-3/marginalrevol-20&asin=0399592946&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
The one that virtually everyone uses is the text constructed by a group of textual scholars adn generally recognized as the best anyone can at present do. It comes in two forms, the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (a bit simpler to use for beginners) and tne Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (now in its 28th ed.; this has more information about where manuscripts have different readings.
There were non-Christians on the committee.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I see that a couple of people believe that Jesus’ ability to walk on the Dead Sea had something to do with the high salt content. I was wondering if you had a view on the matter?
Thank you!
He doesn’t walk on the Dead See in the NT; it’s the Sea of Galilee, which is fresh water. (BTW, anyone who thinks a person can walk on teh Dead Sea has never been in the Dead Sea; I’ve been in it several times. You float — it’s AMAZING; but you can’t stand up on it.)
You have discovered “I have lots of problems” as well as “geographical discrepancy” with NRSV. In your opinion and experience as secretary, is it appropriate for the evangelists to promote it as ‘God inspired the writers?
I’d say that any inspired text can be badly translated. The translation has nothing to do with the inspiration of the original
“The reason for both of these geographical mistakes: the author of the Fourth Gospel has utilized various sources for his account and has spliced them together. When he has done so, he has inadvertently left “literary seams” that show what he has done.”
Whenever I write and revise my own text, I too create “literary seams”. I usually can form only vague conjectures as to how the text could have arrived in such strange configurations.
Is this part of the explanation of the discrepancies? The author revises his own text, forgets where he was (or, in the examples above, where Jesus was) and produces an absurdity. Unless he rereads, the absurdity remains there. Of course, if he does reread he may sometimes try to fix a problem by creating another one.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
So while the OT ends with an expectation for the coming Elijah, the Tanakh ends with 2chronicles… within the Tanakh then, is the expectation of Elijah ever fulfilled?
Thank you!
THat’s a theological question, not a historical one!
Is there an English translation of the Bible you think is best?
That’s what I’m discussing! I think the NRSV is the best.
The NIV and ESV also say Judean countryside.
In the KJV, it’s The land of Judea.
As someone who has attended a Catholic church for 36 years (and is married to a Catholic) I have occasionally come up against anti KJV prejudice (presumably because it’s a *Protestant* Bible) or, more commonly, Catholic friends for whom the KJV is just something they have no knowledge of or interest in. Others promote the Jerusalem Bible as a *Catholic* Bible which they claim is much better than the *Protestant* KJV. So it came as something of a surprise when I heard Henry Wansborough, one of the JB translators, saying how much he loved the KJV. Personally, my heart is probably with that NC pastor with the blow torch. I love the original KJV too. 🙂
One reason I like the Harper Collins study edition of the NRSV is that it sometimes comments on these problems. I’m disappointed to have to report it has no comment on John 3:22. As for John 6:1, a note there refers back to the note on John 5:1-72, where it admits that the geography is a problem, and this led some scholars to argue that the chapter arrangement is out of order, that chapter 5 belongs after chapter 6 – though it goes on to admit that it can’t explain how the chapters got into the present order.
Sounds to me like their “chapter out of order” hypothesis is in line with your “splicing” argument, but do you have any thoughts on why the “splicer” put them in the “wrong” order? (Assuming that the chapter divisions were the same as we have them now.)
On the topic of the gospel of John, I remember in one of your books you pointed out that it’s difficult to distinguish when the author is talking and when Jesus is talking because they are essentially one and the same, the author of the gospel of John. But on the other hand you say that the four gospels are our best sources for the historical Jesus. My question for you is what does the gospel of John contain that you believe gives us historical information about the historical Jesus?
I’d say there is a lot of historical information there. Jesus was a Jewish teacher who had disciples that he taught his understanding of the God of Israel spending most of his time in Galilee and at teh end going to Jerusalem for a passover feast at whichy he was was arrested at Jewish instigation and turned over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified…. And so on. It has lots of inaccuracies, in my view; but it cannot simply be tossed aside. It is *still* a historical source of information. The key is figuring out which parts are historical and which not.
Maybe it isn’t history. Set in history, maybe it is literature.
Of subject again… Sorry.
From the evidence of the gospels, it seems that Jesus may have feared arrest in Jerusalem and was trying to avoid it:
–They were hiding at night when they were away from the crowds. Judas betrayed him by revealing his hiding spot to Ciaphas.
–Peter was ostensibly carrying a sword and Jesus also mentioned them buying some kind of weapon.
–Peter ostensibly affirmed to Jesus that he was willing to go to prison and die with him.
–Jesus encouraged the discples to stay awake and watch.
–Jesus appeared to the disciples as very stressed and fearful.
But if Jesus truly worried about arrest, why did he stay in Jerusalem? Why not leave town, until things calm down? That makes no sense, if he truly feared death.
From my pov, this means that Jesus knew he was in danger of being arrested and possibly be killed, but felt his mission superseded the risk. If I’m being objective, this would lend credance to the likelihood that Jesus was anticipating a strong likelihood of death as he carried out his spiritual mission in Jerusalem. If death wasn’t part of his endgame what was?
Am I wrong?
I think so. 🙂 (For one thing, it’s extremely important to differentiate what the Gospels say about Jesus from what actdually happened, and to have some criteria for knowing which is which)
But even if Peter never really had a sword that night, or Jesus never encouraged buying a sword, or Jesus never appeared stressed that night, or Peter never gave those words of affirmation of dying with Jesus…
The fact is, Judas betrayed Jesus by revealing their location. The betrayal had to be planned, because I can’t see how Judas met with Ciaphas on one of the biggest festival nights of the year impromptu and such an arrest be organized that quickly on such a night without prior planning. They would have had to have some kind of prior conversation.
This means that Ciaphas was planning to arrest Jesus before the betrayal night. But something stopped him doing it during the day. I can’t thing of anything else, other than Jesus had a significant following in Jerusalem, and Ciaphas didn’t want to cause a riot or uproar. Because of passover, many of his Galilean followers may have come down to Jerusalem. So Ciaphas may have intended to do it quietly while the people were distracted.
I guess you would believe that Jesus wasn’t really hiding and completely unaware that Ciaphas had a bullseye target on him and that arrest was imminent?
None of the accounts indicates he was hiding. And if he really wanted to hide, he certainly could have done so pretty easily.
Seriously, Bart, what is so convincing that ANY of the New Testament “actually happened”? Lots of things are written, with historical settings and trappings, that DIDN’T happen. Virtually all of it can be traced to other sources and certainly the miracle stories are not true. Masters agree, ‘miracles’ ARE possible by Masters but don’t happen –because they serve no purpose. They have other ways to attract followers. (They don’t need people like me, either, so please don’t conclude I’m proselytizing!)
The NIV seems to have no qualms about making such “corrections.” Like in Deuteronomy where it has the author say “east of the Jordan” instead of “across the Jordan” so that the faithful can pretend Moses wrote it. And of course it also mistranslates John 3:22, “…went OUT into the Judean countryside,” going even farther than the NRSV to erase the seam. I like my edition of the NAS, it seems to avoid such changes, e.g., “…came into the land of Judea…” leaving the seam intact, and usually has footnotes where there are questionable or difficult translations.
What are (GHN) and (XWRIS)? Sorry, I’m new to reading about the bible.
Sorry: they are English letterings of Greek words: “land” and “countryside” respectively (using the weird transliteration system that I use)
Oh, come on. No one is ever going to notice a small thing like that, and this way the text makes more sense. A small thing here, a small thing there, and pretty soon no one will take the Bible for an infallible text.
What do you think of the change to Philippians 2:6?
RSV
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped…
NRSV
who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited…
I think it’s flat out wrong. But it’s a very unusual term and there are huge debates over whether it means to “grab for something you don’t have” or to “hold on jealously to what you do have.” I think in the context it has to be the former.
Yes the context is probative here. In your duties were you privy to this particular discussion? I would love to have been the proverbial fly on the wall. Do you know where Prof Metzger came down on the issue?
I heard him give an entire lecture on it. But, well, that was 40 years ago. So I remember *THAT* he gave the lecture! I *think* he thought the best translatino was “the bread that we need for today.”
I think you responded to someone else’s question! Ha! Would this be regarded as textual corruption?
Hi Bart, I would be interested to know what you make of Carlson’s support for the ηλθεν (he came) variant at Gal 2:12.
Concerning geography, NA has a conjectural emendation at Acts 16:12, designed to stop Luke exaggerating the prominence of Philippi. I have argued that Luke over-states Philippi’s status because Theophilus lived there.
I haven’t looked at it in a long time (I directed his dissertation on the textual history of Galatians), but I ddon’t think it makes good sense in the context. My view of Theophilus is that we don’t know who he was, or even if he existed as an individual (I doubt it), let alone where he might have resided or whether Luke was concerned about that. I would not say Philippi is given a particularly prominent status in Acts.
Yes, ηλθεν makes less sense in the context, so it is the harder reading and this is one reason to prefer it.
Acts seems to give a shout-out to the founding hosts/benefactors of the Aegean churches (Lydia, Jason, Prisca & Aquila, Justus, Crispus, Tyrannus), but does not do the same for Galatia, for example. This might mean that Acts was written primarily for the Aegean churches. Paul and his companions receive three pieces of divine guidance to bring them to Macedonia as quickly as possible (16:6-10). This would have been particularly interesting for a Macedonian audience. Philippi, which was not a large town, certainly features prominently in Acts, which devotes 29 verses to it. Compare Thessalonica 9, Beroea 5, Athens 20, Corinth 17, Ephesus 51.
Following up your point about the ‘land of Judea’ (John3:22) I note it also says “he (Jesus) baptised”. However, in John 4:2 it states “although Jesus himself did not baptise but his disciples”. Do you think that there is a discrepancy here or does this later verse simply explain and elaborate on the earlier one? Is there any manuscript evidence i.e. a textual variant at this point, that a scribe inserted something here in order to tidy up a problem? I understand that Catholics are taught that Jesus did not baptise because (as one questioner on a web site states) “the Bible never mentions Jesus baptising anyone, because our sacrament of baptism commemorates the death and resurrection of Christ and he had not yet died and risen.”
It is usually thought that a first edition of John said that Jesus performed baptisms, but a later editor “clarified” the statement by indicating that, in fact, he did not….
I think everything is about making the Bible look like it is God’s word with no mistakes. In other words”The Words of God are perfect.” Psalm 19:7 Deuteronomy 32:4.. I was a Christian for 21 years and I knew dam well that were mistakes in the Bible but just couldn’t find them. Now that you have came along has help me to see that the Bible is not God’s truly words. I feel free in the sense that I no longer has to listen to people who used the Bible as an instrument to promote their identity. I do appreciate all your efforts in doing what you do best to help others see the light of day. Once again thank you!!!
Sorry to be off topic, but what do you think of the Jefferson Bible?
It’s a great idea, and still available for purchase!
Ongoing modern efforts to harmonize a story by those who, at least should have, known better….. Maybe I shouldn’t be as hard as I have been on Facebook?
Hi Bart. Just wondering what your thoughts are on the RSV (Revised Standard Version) ?
Thanks
It was a huge advance in its day.
I think that “Judean countryside” might be a good translation in a cultural context. In Finland, “Europe” by default refers to western central Europe. So in local custom, “going to Judea” might mean outside Jerusalem, just like “touring Europe” in Finland does not refer to Scandinavia or eastern Europe. Who knows.
Dr. Ehrman, Which 2-3 translations of the Bible are your favorites or the most accurate ones in your opinion? Thanks.
I like the NRSV very much. I very much like the KJV for the aesthetics.
Bart:
OK, you feel NRSV is best. Thanks.
Any comment on the Jesus Seminar’s Scholars Version?
How about that Good News for Modern Man translation?
Thanks.
–Mark
Racine, WI, US(A)
The Jesus Seminar’s is a bit quirty; Good News is so higlhy idiomatic that it’s very interpretive, based on teh translator’s views of the what hte text meant.
Thank you!
Serious people, it’s not that difficult to learn to read New Testament Greek. The vocab isn’t massive and there are wonderful interlinear sites to support you:
I’d say it’s hard to learn well. We used to say in grad school: “A little Greek is a dangerous thing”! But yup, it’s easier than Homer…..
Bart,
In looking for the NRSV publication that is the best to get, I see multiple versions out there (like if you do a search on Amazon). I heard but may be mistakened that there was to be a new NRSV coming out in May 2022, but I do not see that one available. Appears the latest is dated late Fall 2021 (month veries by publication.
So which one is the most recent and best one to pick?
The multiple NRSV’s that you see are not different translations but different packagings of the same translation — with features not found in the translation itself (e.g., maps, introductions, explanatory notes, subheadings, etc.) . My preferred ones are the HarperCollins Study Bible and the Oxford Annotated Bible. The new update has appeared, The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue). Not an especially catchy title, and I don’t think most people will find it to be significantly different, though a lot of work went into it to modernize the language in places.