(16 votes, average: 4.81 out of 5)
Loading...Here I continue with some reminiscences of my work with my mentor Bruce Metzger.
******************************
When I was still a graduate student in the PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary, Metzger invited me to serve as a secretary for the committee that was producing the new revision of the Revised Standard Version translation of the Bible. The RSV (on which the new translation was to be based) had come out in 1952, and it had caused a huge furor at the time. It was an “official” revision of the King James Bible, that was supposed to update the language (English has changed a lot since 1611), to take into consideration new manuscript discoveries (especially important for the New Testament, since the KJV was based on only a few medieval manuscripts that were not of very high quality; hundreds of better ones had since been discovered, and to incorporate the findings of modern Biblical scholarship).
The RSV of 1952 was an “official” translation because it was authorized by the National Council of Churches in the U.S. But in the opinion of very conservative Christians it was an outrage, the product of liberal biblical scholarship, not of true believers. (!)
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
Metzger was on the original RSV committee in the 1940s and 1950s, and when the committee was recommissioned in the 1970s he was asked to be the chair. Their goal and mission was to update the translation yet again in light of the (rather large) changes that had again occurred in the English language and the (rather significant) new discoveries and advanced scholarship that had taken place.
The committee was made up of scholars from a range of Christian denominations, several Jewish scholars, and at least one person who was an agnostic (I think: I never asked him, but I’m pretty sure he was not a believer) (although he had been raised evangelical Christian). The whole committee was divided into four subcommittees, three for the OT (which is obviously much longer than the NT) and one for the NT. The committee met twice a year for a week in Princeton: one week over Christmas holidays and one week in the summer. It was a vast amount of work.
The way it worked was this. For each book of the Bible, one committee member went carefully over the RSV translation and decided what had to be changed and updated, and what could be left the same. He or she (there were several women on the committee) would then write up a lengthy report with their findings and suggestions, circulate them in advance, and everyone would consider them before coming together for the weekly meeting. All of these scholars were expert, of course, in the relevant languages. For the Old Testament, that meant being fully expert in Hebrew, but also in the cognate languages: Ugaritic and Akkadian, for example, as well as in the languages into which the Hebrew Bible had been translated, such as Greek and Latin. For the New Testament the translators worked directly with the Greek but also had to be able to handle ancient translations into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and so on.
During the weekly meeting, then, the subcommittees would discuss the proposed new translations (which were actually proposed revisions of the translation found in the RSV). Some books required far more additional revision than others. The work of the committee, during the week, involved going verse by verse, line by line, word by word, and hammering out the revision of the text, as proposed by the person who had written the report. S/he had no greater say over the final outcome than anyone else.
The sub-committee would consider every proposed revision, suggest ones of their own, and then came the key element: they would vote.
You may wonder how translation committees decided on a translation of a text (why this translation of the verse instead of that one). It is done by a show of hands. Some people may not like that idea, but there is no way around it, if you want to have a committee as opposed to an individual person doing the translation. And having a committee is so much better, because the idiosyncrasies of each translator are then taken out of the equation, and you get a translation that represents a consensus of scholarship.
The problem is that if there are seven persons on the subcommittee, and four vote one way and three the other – well, the majority wins. And not every member can make it to every committee meeting. So the translation ends up being the one acceptable to the majority of committee members who happen to be there at that time.
So – back to my involvement. I was just a graduate student, and was obviously not a committee member myself. These were some of the very top biblical scholars and philologists in North America. I was a secretary for the committee. The four subcommittees all met at the same time, covering different books of the Bible, and so there were four secretaries. I was appointed to one of the subcommittees (as were the other secretaries), and I recorded the votes.
It was an amazing experience, hearing these OT scholars debate back and forth how to translate the books of the Bible. They were operating at a very intense and high academic level: do we want to translate this word in that way? Don’t forget, the Ugaritic cognate that works is XXX; yes but the Akkadian is YYY; and in the Septuagint it is translated as ZZZ; yes but in Ezekiel 9 it clearly means WWW; right, but the Vulgate has UUU, etc. etc. – word after word, verse after verse, for the whole Bible.
As secretaries we had other duties (a committee member would ask, for example, “remind us how we translated it in 6:11”). When we had recorded all the votes, we submitted the results to Metzger who had someone else coordinate all the efforts of all the subcommittees. A few years later I was the one doing all the coordinating, as I’ll explain in the next post.
I just love that I know this and some of my ardent bible-thumping friends don’t!!
Hmmm – Love? or hate?
This process of determining what is “sacred”, i.e. the TRUE word of God, is a large part of why I left the church over forty years ago and determined that religions are man-made constructs: God himself can’t reveal his intent to the people he wants to save – it takes a committee.
👏👏👏👏👏
I echo this sentiment. Well done succinct statement,
I’m sure Prof Ehrman is aware of this, but I’d also commend to the attention of my fellow ‘blog readers Prof Metzger’s book “The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible”.
One of the most useful (and memorable) features of the book is Prof Metzger’s discussions of specific examples of changes that the translation committee made when updating passages in the RSV to the NRSV.
My favorite example is from 2Cor 11:25, which was translated in the NRSV(1989) as:
> “Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning. […]”
This serves as an excellent example of some of the problems faced by anyone who attempts a translation. Specifically, in this case it wasn’t simply an issue of new data or manuscripts emerging, or of debates concerning obscure subtleties in the Greek grammar, but rather the fact that the target language can sometimes shift out from under the translators’ feet, in that in the RSV(1952) the sentence had been translated as:
> “[…] Once I was stoned. […]”
Could you say a little more about the importance of Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates? How did those help to inform the OT translation?
Maybe I should post on that. Since there are not Hebrew texts of the same age as those of the BIble, it is often hard to know what words might have meant. But if there are related words in related languages, then we can see what these words mean and that can provide some purchase on what the Hebrew word also meant.
Like préservatif/preservative in modern French and English?
😉
Ha! Or rubber in England (eraser) and in America. (OK, that’s a bit different, but a similar issue, one that has caused more than one English shopper in an American store some embarassment). But yes, false cognates always create problems but also, of course, philologists are the world experts in false cognates, so they recognize the problem.
Dear Bart, I see two problems with your interpretation in relation to your article on Jesus’ view of Salvation. First, Monotheism, the commandment to worship the One God and refuse the worship of other gods, is the foundation where subsequent human interaction is built upon. This contradicts the later (or rather contemporary) Rabbinic view of “righteous” Gentiles who are saved because they are friendly and useful to Israel but could freely worship other foreign gods. Secondly, the good Samaritan was not a Roman polytheist, but a marginalised Israelite/ Semite Torah-abiding monotheist who worshipped YHWH on a different mountain (cultic centre).
So, simply doing good deeds was not sufficient for salvation. Doing good deeds after believing in the predominant model of Jewish monotheism at the time (which refuted binitarianism, trinitarianism, polytheism or henotheism) were considered salvific.
Of course, this flatly contradicts the Pauline theory of vicarious atonement as the only salvific korban to be followed by inspired deeds, and is reflected in anti-Pauline Jewish Christianity and later in the Islamic theology of monotheism and good deeds as universal means of salvation in a universal (not only the Jewish-friendly version) judgment day.
Mr. Ehrman, if you had to reexamine the translation of a book of the Bible, what book would that be and why?
No one of them stands out as in particular need for re-translation. THere are lots of passages I would like changed; but that’s true of every biblical scholar I should think.
I don’t suppose the American Bible Society’s 1966 Good News For Modern Man was consulted at any point in the process? (As a kid I have to say I enjoyed Swiss artist Annie Volloton’s line drawings.)
Is the NRSV updated edition still slated for release later this year? Any inside scoops? Controversies to look for?
Uh, no,i it was not…. I think it is still to be released soon, but I haven’t heard. I doubt if there will be many controversies; the committee was not making radical changes. One rather upsetting decision though was not to translate the word “slave” as “slave” in the NT (I think they are going back to “servant”). The committee had reasons for it’s decision, but it’s not a good one, as a number of committee members agree. The words refers to a person owned by another, not to the voluntary help.
Bart, did each committee meeting begin with prayer for God’s guidance on the proceedings?
Yes it did! Led by Metzger.
Lord’s Prayer is definitely needed otherwise the Heavenly Father can lead the committee members into temptation and consequently lead millions into satan’s hands 🙌 . The committee’s prayer has an integral part in preventing the father from screwing up his loved creation 😉😉.
This is so fascinating! Could you give a concrete example of a discussion around a specific verse, sentence, or word?
I am a translator myself, albeit of rather mundane technical manuals in German and English. But even in my work, I come across interesting challenges regarding the way languages work (differently). I can only imagine the difficulties involved in translating ancient languages, frequently talking about rather opaque issues, into any modern-day language.
Has anyone actually written a book (for a general audience) about this specific subject, the challenges of Bible translation? In English or German?
Oh yes, there are a number of books on that. Metzger himself wrote one, The Bible in Translation.
One of the big difficulties the committee had was using inclusive language without destroying the quality of the ENglish and misrepresenting the passage. Maybe I’ll post on that….
In respect to revised editions of the Bible, some readers might be interested in this piece in Slate magazine regarding the various ‘American’ Bibles that were produced:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/09/lee-greenwood-bible-christian-publishing.html?sid=5388f3fddd52b8e41100a9c4&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=TheSlatest&utm_campaign=traffic
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What is Liberation Theology? And who can I read to learn more?
Thank you!!
It’s a very important form of modern theology with many aspects to it, all of them, though, stressing that God is on the side of the oppressed and his work among his people involves librerating them from their oppression (with a keen interest in biblical narratives, starting esp. with the Exodus event). For decades it has been very prominent among Latin American and African American theologians. For two of the very fine and influential expositors, check out the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez and James Cone.
So, conservatives objected to the RSV trying to use the oldest and best texts available, but in their debates with you don’t they argue that the oldest and best texts support traditional Christian doctrines and beliefs? I don’t understand their problem with the RSV, then! Question prompted by your previous posts: Matthew includes the parable of the sheep and goats, and Luke the Good Samaritan. Rather than being from sources M and L couldn’t they both be from Q but Matthew chose to use one and Luke the other? Couldn’t all the material supposedly from M and L actually be from Q, but each author selectively used it, just as they selectively used and edited Mark? Or is there something about the supposed Q teachings that link them together, like style or vocabulary, and that therefore excludes other unrelated material?
Yes, they certainly could be from Q. That’s the methodological problem with knowing what’s in Q: M material may be originally Q, and L material, and passion material, and lots of other things. But once you open the floodgate, you no longer have Q, just Mark and everything else. Some scholar have tried to isolate Q material from M and L, but it’s usually seen as a rather speculative endeavor.
Dr. Ehrman – You’ve written and spoken about the sheer number of ancient sources that we have for the Old and New Testaments, and the numerous differences between them all. Did the RSV committee divide its time between (a) debating which sources were best and (b) deciding on an appropriate english translation? In the second-to-last paragraph of your post, you discuss (b). I’m wondering whether (a) was also part of the committee’s purview.
If (a) was part of their discussions, did they use specific criteria to decide which sources were best?
And if (a) wasn’t part of their discussions, then who provided the source documents?
The committee certainly debated individual passages about which was the most likely original text, but for the most part they relied on the committees of experts who produced our best editions of the Hebrew Bible and NT (some of teh scholars were on both committees — e.g., Metzger himself). MOST of teh committee’s work was devoted to rendering the text into English, since most scholars think that the texts in Greek and Hebrew that we now have are about as good as we’re everr likely to get.
This is fascinating! I have always wondered how the work was translated into today’s English after being translated multiple times previously. It’s good to know such care was taken to get it as accurate as possible.
What a wonderful inspiring job you had at the time, to my opinion. Tedious as well I gather, but still an awesome experience with so much scientific knowledge united.
Thanks for sharing this behind-the- scenes view of the process. For a young scholar, it must have been an eye-opening education.
Dr Ehrman, did the 1970s committee discuss the issue of inclusive language, which is such a hot topic in bible translation today? As some original language was inherently patriarchal, making it sound more inclusive in English could effectively mean ‘rewriting’ the Bible, according to some authorities.
Oh yes, it was an extremely hot topic, a major concern. Later I was hired full time in part to make sure the committee had consistently followed its guidelines for using inclusive language. I’ll discuss some of that later.
Did you witness any work on Isaiah 7:14?
It’s interesting to think Christian scholars would be perfectly happy to use the “young woman” translation, seeing it goes against centuries of virgin birth theology.
Yes, I did hear it discussed. The Hebrew word means “young woman” not “woman who has never had sex,” and the translators, whether Christian or not, were interested in the most accurate translation, not the most theologically satisfying one.
What if you have a Hebrew or Greek word that has no counterpart in the English language? How do you translate the word in a way that the typical English reader would understand its meaning? I understand that there are multiple words in the Greek language for love so how do you pass along to the reader any subtle differences in the words if they are used in the same passage as in john 21:15-17?
Normally you simply come up with the best equivalent you can, and possibly add a footnote with an alternative translation.
You seem to have a preference for the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Evangelicals seem to prefer the New International Version (NIV) and more recently the English Standard Version (ESV). How do these versions compare in terms of accuracy? Do the NIV and ESV have a theological slant that affects their accuracy?
I don’t know about the ESV, since I’ve never examined it closely. But the NIV definitely solves “problems” posed by the text itself (to get rid of contradictions, and so on) in ways that most of us non-evangelicals think are unjustified and misleading.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
What is the history behind the Camino, and how does it relate to Christianity?
Thank you!
I’m afraid I don’t know. (When I first read the word I thought it referred to a car I lusted after in high school)
How much do you think it would cost to finance an uber new revised version?
I really don’t know. If it’s by a committee it would be very different from if an individual did it. These days, with remote options, it would cost far less than when the committee from around the country had to be flown in and put up for a week with all expenses paid twice a year for a couple of decades.
Hey Professor Ehrman, hope you are doing well. What is the current scholarship position on taking the Old Testament as a history book and generally speaking does it contradict a lot of our secular primary sources in history and genealogy? Could you refer me to some works on this?
Thanks again Professor!
Critical scholars almost uniformly agree that the Old Testament does contain accounts that are attempting to report what happened in the past, filtered through religious perspectives; that some of the historical reporting can be seen as accurate descriptons of what did happened; but a good deal of it (most?) is not accurate. If you want a rigorous critical view, written for a general audience, check out the books by William Dever.
Part 1
I’m not an especially smart person, that’s why when I am corrected I accept the correction, but how does that old saying go, “Trust, but verify”. The result being I engage a lot of people I can never trust. Most of them live by the mantra, “All I will ever need to know I learned by fifth grade”.
My greatest peeve with bible translators comes with the one word “trespass”. The most misused word spoken from the pulpit. At the time when bibles were translated into English the meaning of trespass was equal to the Greek word which I find as ‘a misstep’. The sixteenth century translators correctly used the word trespass at that time.
A trespass is used in several plays by Shakespeare. In the examples I encountered trespass did not appear to even be a misdemeanor, within 150 years the meaning had grown to a full felony. The only reason for that change, in my humbled opinion was theology. Theologians needed the membership to forgive them, and the best way to achieve that was by using the Bible with changed meanings of important words. So why continue use trespass when the true meaning is lost.
Part 2
The word trespass is linked to the word forgive or forgiveness. I was completely taken aback by one theologian who preached from the pulpit forgiving murders, rapist, and paedophiles. All I could think about after that statement was, what was going on in his life. How does a child forgive their paedophile? This mindset comes from overextending the meaning of a trespass. From there overextending the use of forgive.
After months of searching for a better something on this impasse I came across a teaching sermon of Dr Tim Mackie PHD from that I took these notes:
Forgiveness is not
Ignoring or forgetting
Condoning or excusing
Tolerating or allowing further abuse
Reconciliation or restoration
Returning back to the way things were
Allowing the offender to escape the consequences
I came to further realize that this list is built on the wrong interpretation of trespass.
Why does modern theology teach forgiveness of a trespass that did not exist in the first century. Today’s translators have changed the word misstep to felony with no conscience understanding of the greater harm they have created while believing they are doing the greater good.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
If Jesus did not know that he would die and did not think that his death would play a role in salvation, what does one make of the last supper or gethsemane scene where he seems to know exactly what is about to happen and why?
Thank you!
As you know, every passage, every verse, every word in the Gospels has to be examined closely, following rigorous historical criteria, to determine whether they are historical or not — that is, whether they are things that actually happened — or represent later retellings of the stories to advance the purposes of the story tellers (or Gospel writers). The Gethsemane scene, for example. If the Gospels are right that Jesus went off by himself, apart from the apostles (who fell asleep), and he was arrested right afterward and was jailed and then executed the next morning — how would anyone (including, say, Mark) know what he said at the time? See what I mean?
It must have been hard for many conservative Christians to admit that the KJV of the Bible, which they had been saying was inerrant, actually did have errors in it, as the evidence provided by the NRSV committees showed.
The New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition (NRSV-UE) is slated to be released November 18th, 2021.
Questions: Were you a consultant for this project? Will it be the version you use for your scholarly work? Do you recommend everyone use it over other versions?
No, I wasn’t a consultant, apart from telling friends on teh committee what I thought! 🙂 I haven’t seen the translation yet so I’m unable to judge it at this point.
Q: Is not using inclusive language to go with the political/theological culture of our time, pretty much the same as scribes changing words in ancient manuscripts?
Using inclusive language means acknowledging that women are humans as well as men. That seems like a right move. The translators are not changing the words of the text: they are putting them in modern language. And in modern English when you say “man” you mean “male.” I’ll talk more about this anon.
Wouldn’t you agree that not only in modern English but in other languages as well whether ancient or alive, when you say man, you mean male!!
By changing the the gender word, it is an acknowledgment that the inspired Jewish ancients didn’t have the concept of a HUMAN regardless of gender,color,religion or ethnicity.
Was there at any time in canonical Bible the word human mentioned?
Even “baniadam” means literally son of Adam not daughter of Adam & built on the mythical concept of Adam being the 1st human.
No, I would say that is definitelly not the case. The Greek word “ANTHROPOS” is masculine, and is traditionally translated “man.” But it refers to both men and women, just as “man” and “mankind” used to in English. Another example: if an author in the NT addresses his audience as “brothers,” and there are women there, then he obviously means “brother and sisters.”
It looks like insurmountable hill to go linguistically against a professor in greek though it is 2nd to none to prick intellectual minds. It is so much fun & I may have an excuse because I am fluently bilingual with one language using similar gender nouns. Though weird in English but in such languages, every word is gender based either masculine or feminine or neutral. e.g. bridge is masculine while booklet is feminine, etc. Based on such, masculine nouns like man doesn’t include feminine derivatives. So even if such concept is absent in English & as a result the translated English word may refer to both genders but this approach is using a loophole to twist the literal meaning of the original language.
Secondly, even though greek culture perceives women much higher than the jewish counterpart but the main speaker “Saul Paul” was a fundamental jewish celibate who had male only companions all along-if NT in this aspect to be historically accurate-. When he speaks, he addresses other males even if there were females around. Assumption of a character like this to include both genders is an assumption from a modern day westerner not a Middle east ancient jewish hybrid.
Here are some examples of specific feminine & masculine: James 2:15, Corinth 7:12, Mat12:50, Rom 15:16 vs gender inclusive CorinII 1:1