How to Translate the Bible: Problems and Pitfalls
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 янв 2023
- Wondrium allows you to stream 8,000+ hours of lectures and documentaries in the areas of history, religion, and science, including several courses by Dr. Ehrman. *Sign up for a free trial at bartehrman.com/wondrium.
Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
There are hundreds of Bible translations available - but why so many and why are they different? When a biblical scholar decides to do a translation, which manuscripts do they choose to use, how to they know what the ancient words meant, and do religious considerations get in the way of accurate translations. Are there places where no one can agree on what the original text says? Jennifer Knust is a prominent New Testament scholar who helped lead the committee that recently produced an updated edition of the New Revised Standard Version. Here she discusses with Bart the problems and pitfalls of biblical translation.
*Advertising Disclaimer: We are an affiliate partner for Wondrium, so if you sign up for a paid plan with them, we will earn a commission. This in no way affects your price and you’ll be supporting our show, so we thank you.
This was very interesting. Clearly two people who are very intelligent and well versed in their field. One thing I noticed a few times is Jennifer would throw out an acronym or word that most of us are completely unfamiliar with and Bart would clarify or ask her to do so. Of course, she's used to talking to other academics about this stuff, not us novices. That's something special about Bart is his ability to simplify complex concepts. Absolutely loving the podcast, and very thankful for every new piece of information I hear here.
Agreed.
I really enjoy these conversations.
You don’t realize how well you know something until you go to teach it. Barts ability to teach so well is proof of his incredibly thorough understanding of the NT.
Teachers are cool like that 🤗
As a research centre working on a new translation of the Quran, this was a useful insight! Thank you.
Please send me a copy when you complete it :D I am Jewish and have always been interested in reading it, but have never found a satisfactory translation, and knowing no Arabic, translation is the only way.
@@romeyjondorfefinitely consult The Clear Quran. It was translated in 2016 I think and is pretty great in terms of having lots of footnotes and helpful translation things, such as the famous “untranslatable words” that begin many of the Surahs, or chapters, carefully explaining what they are and why it’s important. They have a normal version which is super cheap and compact, and a really cool leather bound hardcover version that has the Arabic, English, and footnotes and is wonderful (available from the Furqaan foundation). Hope you learn what you want!
@@gearaddictclimber2524 Thank you! I will definitely have a look at that, as I am interested in reading it. :)
This podcast series has made me appreciate Dr. Ehrman even more. Both Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Knust are very talented and extremely smart.
Where Bart says that most people don't read the footnotes... I can't speak for "most people" but I know that when I was a small child (maybe 6 or 7?) my father gave me a Revised Standard Version bible. Before that I had only seen the King James. The RSV immediately seemed special to me precisely because it had footnotes that gave insight into the translation. It was always my favorite version and I *always* read the footnotes, usually giving them more credence that the actual text. If anything, I would have wanted the footnotes to be even more detailed.
Theres a Jewish annotated New Testament out there (Editor: Amy Jill Levine) and the whole reason for getting this text is the footnotes. And they are funny at times.
"Pigs can swim" referring to the exorcism of the demon legion.
I can recommend this documentary on RSV. It is 20 years old but quite fascinating.
ruclips.net/video/uhMApkYHoTY/видео.html
@@russellmiles2861 thanks! I'm watching it now.
You're of the rare types who care to know vs. those who just swallow anything fed to them without asking questions or thinking about it.
the cult I grew up in relyed & pray-read the footnotes of their Bibles with it.
This is fantastic Bart! I love this format. I’ve wanted you to ask the questions for quite some time now. Cheers Bart!
I can't imagine how hard it is to be on a translation committee with people that have a preference/bias toward what they believe
and what they want others to believe..
Such a stimulating discussion. This was an absorbing episode which seemed to make time fly past!
This is a brilliant series of videos. Problems of translation are virtually unknown to most Christians. Most will tell you it doesn't matter because God will protect the scriptures from being mistranslated. Astonishing ignorance.
Great Guest, Bart.
THIS IS EASILY ONE OF MY FAVORITE VIDEOS PRODUCED ON THIS PODCAST. AWESOME!!!!
Jennifer Knust was really interesting. Please have her on again.
An incredibly interesting interview. Thank you very much!
So grateful for these two.
This interview was fantastic! Loved it! Do more interviews with her! 🤗🤗
I just can't overstate the relevance of such topics. Thanks, Dr. Ehrman, for enlightening us about it.
That just whetted my appetite. I hope you have that pair again.
Extremely interesting! Thank you.
So fascinating and informative, thank you. 🙏
Great conversation!
Wonderful episode.
I enjoyed every WORD of this discussion.
"Hapax legomenon" is such a fun term, thanks for that part of the discussion in particular!
Woot! New video!!!
Thank you very much Prof. Ehrman and Dr Krust for this fruitful and scholarly discussion.
Great! Loved this!
So funny and interesting. Thank you so much!!!
Absolutely fascinating. For almost all of my life I used the New World Translation 1984 Reference Edition which is produced by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses). However, it is clear that this translation has some significant biases, biases which were only amplified in their more recent editions. I have been searching for a readable English translation with a philosophy similar to what Metzgar stated, ‘literal as possible while open as necessary’. I can’t tell you how helpful this conversation has been in helping me evaluate what translation(s) will be my go to going forward. This did not answer that question, but certainly added some tools to my toolbox in making that evaluation. Thank you Professor Ehrman. I would love to hear and speak with you in person someday.
Another definition of “boundaries” is BIASES These COUNCILS “mandate” is to translate ambiguous scriptures to reflect THEIR particular RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE. Dr. Jason Be Duhns book -“ Truth In Translation” , which discusses accuracy and BIAS in translations compares 7 of the most difficult scriptures to translate from Greek to English IN 9 MOST POPULAR TRANSLATIONS, INCLUDING THE KJV, AS,NIV, AB, etc. etc. It is an excellent book for scholars and lay people. It is fascinating for those who are searching for the TRUTH IN TRANSLATION WITHOUT BIAS.
My grandfather was a KJV-only Baptist minister from the 1920s through the 1960s. He would call the RSV the “Devised Version”.
What a great discussion.
Awesome guest!
A fascinating episode. 👌
Bart looks like he is winning the battle of the college professors bookcase.
I have been riveted to my laptop viewing and listening to this podcast, Bart! Let's have some more like this one! Very interesting!
"26 translations" is true I wrote a paper once about a single Greek word from the prodigal son and found 26 different translations of the same word. Not a single agreement.
I saw a book once in the reference section of the university library. It a huge book of photographic plates of notes from one of the KJV translators. He had three columns: Greek to Latin to English.
What was the title of the reference book? I'd like to find it
It is very interesting to me that people tend to think "how it is now" is "how it has always been." Language changes happen. All the time. To think that it won't happen to the bible is silly. Well, there was a Texan who said, "I English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me." But it is not just language. They have shifted Jesus' appearance until he is a modern WHITE man. Not just a pale guy from the middle east. We have no idea if Jesus was a real guy, but we can with certainty say what we think of him is not what he would have been. That people have True Belief is rather telling and frightening.
He look like a man.
The term for this is anachronism. It really is the main enemy of any historian.
Jesus may have looked like modern Palestinians.
Straight white American Jesus sums up some people’s understanding. It’s an understanding that supports Christian nationalist ideas, including the US becoming a theocracy with the kind of religious control over people that countries like Iran enjoy.
@@trilithon108Yeah. Roughly. I think you are likely right. If there where one person rather that a groups of stories about lots of apocalyptic preachers.
As a (liberal) Christian that believes in the salvific grace of Jesus’ resurrection, I have to agree that defending biblical inerrancy is not only hopelessly infeasible, but also results in deconversion trauma.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman for all you do!
Thank you for sharing . I am no longer a Christian and on of the first steps to leaving Christianity was realizing the Bible is not inerrancy.
Maybe part of the issue for Americans is dealing with this cultural need to start sentences with "as a ". USA seems different in this regard.
? Well, already Rev.Origen, Father of the Church, a martyr, 3rd cent. did not read Genesis literally as if it was a historical record (your inerrancy) and mocked the inerrant, his enemies. Despite Ed. System the majority of poor people have no clue about the basics of how to understand the Bible (and any ancient text)and not only that; the same refers to science as most scientists (perfect majority) and teachers are just fools on the methodology of science-a proof that Satan, a dumb liar(J8:44) rules this world.
@zicada -- is it that different in other countries? Sunni-Shia? Tutsi-Hutu? Catholic-Protestant? Hindu-Muslim? Muslim-Jew?
We do not have deconversion trauma, but we do have trauma in interpreting the Bible differently and accommodating it to our like, so we have different denominations and ideas, but the same is true in any of the three Abramic religions.
Virgin on the ridiculous. I can remember reading about this translation back in the sixties. I am a protestant from a broadly C of E background, so ridiculous improbabilities were not required.
Thank you
Great 👍
Thank you for the illuminating discussion! Dr. Knust's description of the NRSV-updated decision process reminds me of the Quaker process of the Sense of the Meeting. The Sense of the Meeting is said to be revealed beyond consensus. Quakers discuss the business of their local and area Meetings. Typically allowing anyone to participate and voice their beliefs regarding the direction the group should take. But since Quakers are supposed to prioritize a unity of spirit and shared responsibility, it is almost easy to let go of how you want things to go when you discern that the Meeting as a whole is clear on how to proceed. No voting is needed when the Sense of the Meeting is clear to all. It feels like organic collective decision-making emerging from each individual's discernment. The main difference would be that no one owns the copyright and thus would have the final say on things. That kind of transactional structure is directly opposed to the Quaker process. Quakers will often set up committees to study and make recommendations. But these committees do not have any authority as such. Their findings, however, are typically treated with respect and as a rough guideline for the discussion. I have always hoped to see some version of this Quaker process adapted for other groups. I am an atheist, but I fell in love with how Quakers can do business beyond consensus. NGL, not all Quaker Meetings live up to this ideal. But in those moments when they do, the results transcend individual disagreement not by ignoring it but by incorporating each into the community at large via their powers of discernment. All order is an emergent structure based on random fluctuations in a field of chaos. Much love!
My own feeling is that your interpretation is exceedingly generous. in Dr. Knust's example, the committee initially proposed using the word "slave" in all instances, but the National Council of Churches refused to accept that proposal. That left the committee essentially forced to accept the Council's decision because they needed the Council's support for their new translation as a whole. That process represents an exertion of power by the Council and a submission by the less powerful committee of translators. That power dimension is quite different from the Quaker Sense of the Meeting process, at least in its ideal form, which is an attempt to arrive at an objective representation of the truth. Hope that makes sense.
@@lawsonj39 Yes, I think you make sense. Not to put words into Dr. Knust's mouth, she did indicate that while she disagreed with the Council, she understood their rationale. Likewise, I disagree with you but understand your rationale. I would prefer to resolve the issue based on concerns about responsibility instead of power. As in she understood that the Council could not, in good faith, take responsibility for how people would foreseeably interpret that one instance of 'slave', regardless of the academic merits of her position. This concern with responsibility as the deciding factor is what makes the analogy with Quaker Sense of the Meeting compelling in my opinion. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify my concern.
@@rkmh9342
CHRIST
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL
PAUL
(Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME
☝️No need to be a biblical scholar to explain this
@@lawsonj39
CHRIST
(Matthew 15:24) I am NOT sent but unto the Lost sheep of the house of ISRAEL
PAUL
(Romans 9:3-5) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for MY BRETHREN, my kinsmen according to the "FLESH" who are ISRAELITES; to whom pertaineth the ADOPTION, and the GLORY, and the "COVENANTS" and the giving of the LAW, and the service of God, and the "PROMISES" whose are the fathers, and of WHOM AS CONCERNING THE "FLESH" CHRIST CAME
☝️No need to be a biblical scholar to explain this
@@habakkuk2510 Thank you for taking the time to comment. I was surprised to learn how Jewish scholars and rabbis understand these passages. I aim to be humble and assume my knowledge is not complete. If you want, please explain how you interpret these passages. Much love!
The way the guest dances around the word “slave”’is eye opening.
You can feel she’s terrified of offending people who have never been slaves and yet they claim moral superiority.
Very hard to take academia seriously given the sword of Damocles that’s over their heads.
18:00 national council of churches- yeah those straightforward, unbiased people. 🤣. Damn, it’s such a clown show. You look for truth and you’re not gonna get it from the NCC or the SBC never mind the Catholic Church. It’s all political.
All goes back to Jeremiah, if memory serves, don’t trust men
Great presentation regarding the translation of the Bible into english from the original language Greek. This should be required viewing for any serious bible study group that truely wants to understand what the original writings of the bible means and how we came by the translations we use. Especially enjoyed the discussion around 50:00 of the new word used by Paul, manbed. So much we don't know but good to know that you don't know.
PLEASE don't equate "the Bible" with the NT. The majority of "the bible" is in Hebrew. Thank you
Thank you Dr.Erhman. Indeed in Greek ancient and modern, δούλος =doulos means slave and υπηρέτης= hypeeretees means servant. It is a bit strange hearing all foreign scholars using their Erasmian pronouncation. I am sure you know this is not the way these words are read (at least) in modern Greek. Adelfoi is pronounced like adelfee or adelfi. I really appreciate your very interesting videos and podcasts. Thank you for the spread of your knowledge to all those of us who seek the truth.
I guess, one of the main reasons that many people prefer the KJV is the role of the King James Version in establishing what English actually is (or was at the time). As it was the most important book of its time and the most widespread, it was also setting the norm for a unified English. A similar effect can be seen for instance in Luther's German translation of the Bible, which more or less created the High German standard language everyone was at least trying to adhere to.
So happy God gave us his infallible words so clearly!
Yep 😂
Sarcasm detected XD
@@OhManTFE
How does sarcasm apply??
@@habakkuk2510 Because God is a work of fiction. He's making a joke about how if this creature was so smart why did the words get changed over and over and then had to be translated because the language it was first made in no one speaks anymore.
Love your sarcasm!
Interesting point that came up fairly early was cases when the NT authors were quoting the OT in translation and that translation itself was misleading. The translators of the Septuagint were doing the same process, but with less tools than we have today.
Which is why in very traditional judaism the presumed day on which the septuagint appeared is commemorated as a day of mourning
EVERY episode feels like a university level lecture! 👏👍
Most interesting. So effectively there are not only variations in the original manuscripts, but variations in modern translations. These, albeit carefully and collegially agreed, alterations potentially add to or alter the modern meaning of the text. As an Anglican born in the middle of last century I was brought up using the King James version. For a number of years I attended s Presbyterian school and as a year 8 divinity prize received a copy of the New English Bible. Now, having undertaken study in evolutionary biology and physics, I can reconcile my scientific understanding with a now more liberal belief focused on Jesus teaching of relationship between humans. My church, still Anglican has adopted a more evangelistic outlook and uses the NIV. My religious belief is now my own, informed by my life's experience, and I no longer feel the need to conform completely to the corporate beliefs encouraged through the church ministry.
How can you translate anything with the National Council of churches involved in the determining the meaning.
Thank you for this! It got me looking up the New English Bible, which was a translation an Evangelical Fundamentalist bought for me a few years back when he was trying to convert my partner and I who are both liberal Quakers. He figured we'd trust it because it was contributed to by London Yearly Meeting. From my understanding, it is a late 60s/early 70s descendent of English Revised Version.
My favorite version is the New English because they went back to the Greek manuscripts... back to the source.
@@evelynmoyer9069 You'd figure that there's more scholars than ever who approach it honestly from a scholarly and historic perspective these days.
I have for years used the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Am I wrong?
Very interesting discussion n deeply appreciate it..
Clearly, Bart did the driving and funneled Jennifer through the conversation. This experience was of benefit to both Jennifer and the hearer.
Thank you, Bart, for giving her this opportunity and allowing us to witness it.
Thank you both for such an insightful discussion. I never realized the extent to which a copyright holder might influence the outcome of the work of scholars. The example of the difficulties in translating "doulos" seems doubly hard. On the one hand, there is the problem of what does the word "slave" mean to us today - as opposed to what it meant in 1820 or in 1420. On the other hand, there is the problem of what the word implied to the person who originally wrote it. It must be very hard to shed the accumulated cultural change over a couple of millennia to get to the state of mind and culture of an early writer. Alas, we don't have the first draft of the original writer so that we could see what that person was thinking about the story that they were transcribing from oral history. I think Bart makes the point very well in the Mary part of his book "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene".
What does an ancient manuscript say? The first question is "what do you want it to say?" If we had done physics that way, we'd still be writing texts longhand. The challenge for the professionals is clearly to bring intellectual honesty into an endeavor that has so many ways to go wrong. Kind of reminds me of watching a video of a monkey peeling an artichoke.
Speaking of hapax legomena (as one so often does 🙂), I remember I had an Aramaic class where we read the Book of Daniel, and I couldn't help giggling over a footnote speculating about one hapax musical instrument might possibly be: | According to MacPherson, it might be a type of rattle, whereas Conley avers..." I'm a professional translator of modern texts so I know how incredibly complex translation can be, but this discussion really opened my eyes to all the problems specific to biblical translation: the maddening varietty of textual variants, the ideological minefield of scholars with their (hap)axes to grind, committee decisions (makes you miss the good old days where the 70 translators all spontaneously produced identical translations!). Anyway, great job, thanks a lot to both of you!
this is excellent and so informative, especially about the slave/servant issue, i would say 99 percent of church goers in UK England don't know any of this
I address this rather technical question most directly to Prof. Knust, who may be in a position to know, but anyone in the know is welcome to chime in:
How is this recent translation going to be referred to officially in the long term? Its producers and many others seem to be calling it the “NRSVue.” Is that likely to be what the _SBL Handbook_ ends up deciding on? Or will it be “NRSVUE,” “NRSV-UE,” or something else? Do you know or have a strong inkling?
@@notanemoprog, I suggest getting a life. That way, you just might fixate somewhat less obnoxiously on the lives of others.
@@notanemoprog, oooh, pseudo-edgy!
I wonder when the earliest Greek books that are being translated, are from?
I’m very curious to know what version of the Bible Bart recommends to read from as an academic?!
New Revised Standard Version, Harper Collins Study Bible. I purchased one because he recommended it.
Jennifer Knust was such a great guest!! Could you please bring her back? After learning about her here, I've begun reading her book Unprotected Texts - now that would make a riveting episode!
Interesting discussion. Thanks to both Jen and Bart. I have a copy of Jen's book Unprotected Texts - very good book and a cheeky title to boot.
In terms of arsenokoites, I see no reason why the actual Greek word can't be retained in the English translation, with a note saying that there is no scholarly consensus as to the definition. I think the translation referred to by Jennifer "men who have illicit sex" is in itself suggestive and problematic.
Personally, I like the term "man-beds."
pappapiccolino9572. Great comment! I think you were too kind to Jennifer. She has an opinion which is more important to her than the meaning of those words. She assumes there is good homosexual sex and won't let Paul tell her other wise.
Dr Ehrman, I was wondering if you could address the problems of translating into Greek words purportedly spoken by Jesus (or others) in Aramaic. For example, is it true that Petros and Petra are the same word in Aramaic? Are there similar problems elsewhere?
LOL, I was amused to hear in the portion where you were discussing the word "slave" that you said, "... do you slavishly follow a particular..." you pronounced it as "sl-aw-vishly". Is that a regional thing like drugged for dragged?
A fascinating topic discussed with exemplary intelligence. Bravo to Jennifer and Bart.
I suspect there are many here who have a much better idea what the authors of the Bible were trying to convey than I do. If anyone is interested, I'd be curious to know what scholars think of the word _BEG_ in Isaiah 40:22, translated as "circle" in the KJV and as "globe" in many other versions: "He sits enthroned above the _circle_ of the Earth". Strong's says that _BEG_ means "circle, circuit, compass (area encompassed)". This sounds plausible to me, and my feeling (admittedly not backed by any scholarship) is that the authors were not concerned with the shape of the planet, but just telling a story. But flat Earthers, and also Christian globers who want the Bible to be correct in all ways, are opposed on this. Any opinions out there?
cheers from rainy Vienna, Scott
awesome interview. i wish bart had asked jennifer about the value of transliteration in bible translations. regardless, excellent
Super interesting! Thank you for finally helping a born and raised UU understand some of Christianity! It's been a mystery to me my whole long life. You are a saint to me!
How was the word for Christ used in ancient Greek before the biblical use? Who did the Greeks apply it to before Jesus?
She needs to come back on
A great book on the problems of translating is "Le Bon Ton de Marot" by Hofstadter
Using the word student loosely here! Us PhD students are definitely reading footnotes and translator prefaces... or at least I am...
I have been doing some research regarding Matthew 28:19. Is this verse an original verse written by Matthew or it was interpolated by the early Catholic Church when the Nicene creed was formulated or forged.
Is the Apostolic creed the same as the Nicene creed and if not what are the problems we have regarding these problems?
Really great questions. I personally believe the “Father , Son, and Holy Spirit” portion was interpolated by a later scribe.
I used to say the Apostles creed in church. As far as I can tell the Apostles creed and the Nicene creed are basically the same.
I think you want to compare the First Council of Constantinople, because the Nicean Creed does not have a refined definition of the Trinity. All of these texts are in greek. The Apostolic creed comes somewhat later, was written in isolation in Gual and Latin. Somewhat simplified the text was more vernacular in complexity that the Council of Constantinople.
Matthew 28:19. I would argue that its possible that Holy was an interpolation. Baptism from the time of John was assumed to involve a spiritual experience (See Baptism of Jesus in Q). Since Matthew repeatedly uses Christ, he has a higher christology than the typical Jewish jesus follower of the pre-war period. Q does not use the words Holy or Christ. So then the question is this formulation a hyperstatic union, errrr, no. So this formulation seems to have been agreed upon between 325 and 381. Im mean at some point a person who has faith is going to end up letting their faith guide them.
@@michaelhenry1763
These two particular verses regarding this problem come from Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. They both contradict each other in many ways.
For instance,
Jesus Christ commanded His twelve apostles, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19).
Strangely, we read in Acts 2:38, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
The question that now comes to mind is that “does the Bible contain a mistake and contradiction here”?
How do we resolve Jesus Christ’s instructions in Matthew 28:19 with what the Holy Spirit spoke through Peter in Acts 2:38?
This is why many people do get confused when they read the Bible.
The Bible seems to be contradicting itself, does it not?
Which is it? Water baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as Jesus Christ declared (Matthew 28:19)?
Or, be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” as the Holy Spirit through Peter taught (Acts 2:38)?
Even today, some denominations follow Matthew 28:19 while others obey Acts 2:38, fervently accusing each other of not having the valid baptism!
Hence I asked the question regarding the Nicene Creed.
@@thethinking-agnostic7130 A good question. The perfect answer is: here it looks like Acts was written earlier than Matthew. Nicea Council, AD 325: not mentioned yet at all Holy Spirit! St.Athanasasius perfectly ridiculed just Arius on the logical ground (logic as any formal science is perfectly God's one -the nature of formal science): the meaning of "father" and "son or sister" has a sense as relative names,i.e. the relation between names is eternal as any logical theorem!). Of course Semites in general and society, in general, has no clue about this divine logic (used by anyone in the communication); hence, the perfect interpretation and battle have aroused; fortunately, the divine 20th mathematical logic finally resolved this idiocy- like other paradoxes in science (Schrodinger's cat, Twin paradox -in textbooks generally there is BS) - the definition of description by B.Russell in PM, AD 1910; description has a sense but it is not individual name or general name! In this theological case: the term Trinity is just this description to combine the Bible's about God, Jesus from Nazareth, and community@the spirit acting in it plus plain logic; historically, there was a translation problem of translation "hypostasis" (Gr) as "person"(Latin)-of course without knowing the REv.Aristotle, Stoics, etc. by still present Pastor idiots and perfect so-called "non-believers" idiots without any knowledge of philosophy (in the Bible, "God" also means the philosophical term, but "father" or "son/children of God" is only a metaphor and not strict philosophical term and hermeneutics. In general, the present Ed.System@shamefully uneducated pastors terrorize intellectually poor students and sheep begging for some advice! Fr. J.Bochenski OP, a logician, mocked such primitives (pastors,etc) imaging "God-father being pregnant with a belly@baby of Jesus).Another proof-SAtan, a liar(J8:44) rules this dumb world
There are a total of 37 instances of the word baptize, as found within the New Testament. In 33 verses, of these there are 7 verses either through direct inference or give title “ Christ “, and/ or His name as to a baptism formula. 8 if counting this Mt. 28:19 Verse as well? That verses such as: Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3 and Colossians 3:27 amongst the others are contradictory to the Mt. 28:19 to the Trinitarian formula that one can only come to the conclusion that either the Mt. 28:19 is of a later addendum, or the apostles were in direct rebellion to the teachings of our Messiah? And so then one must consider the only other Triune formula as found in 1st John 5:7,8? However this verse has well been documented as to not being found in any Greek texts or manuscripts before the 16th century CE. Nor any Latin Manuscripts or translation before the 8th to 9th century, and thus itself is beyond any credence as to a true rendering. In addition to these I have found no less than 20 credible sources from Dictionaries, Encyclopedia’s, members of the clergy of Catholic’s as as Protestants of note. Also not in support of the current Matthew rendering. I Apologize, as I did not think to bring my notes from home with me, and so have held back from anything I cannot recall off the top of my head with some degree of confidence, as combined these notes represent some 50 or so pages of findings. Eusebius of Cessoriea circa 270-327CE wrote the commentary on the 50CE Hebrew manuscript of Mattiyahu and utilizing it to critique of the Old Latin manuscripts Tertrulians 180 CE translation quotes Mt. 28:19 some eighteen times and reads as follows; Go and make taught ones in my name… thus negating the latter addition, baptizing in the name of the Father,and the… We find in the book of John that the Father is Spirit. And in the books of Isaiah and Revaluations the seven Spirits of the Almighty? And what do we make of this? Mayhaps the Father is much more than we or even the Church Universal, RRC can fathom or discern? I know what this may imply? I too, was shaken to my foundation upon this rock. I ask only that we as the Boreans go back to the Scriptures to see if these things are so? As for myself I seek the truth of the Word. Where ever it leads me? Satan has been at work for the last near 2,000 years through his agents, adding to and taking from the Father’s word. And as found in the book of Daniel that in the end times knowledge shall increase. Though I could go on as there’s so much more I could add. But I believe this will be at least a starting point? For a more comprehensive study please refer to this site and/or check out Shama Yisra’el with ToddD.Bennett, Walk in the Light, series. I pray that this has been of help? Blessings and Shalom
Another example of why Ehrman is ja National Treasure.
Idioms must be hard to translate through several languages over millennia.
The early biblical translations didn’t use the Hebrew texts - they used the Alexandrine Greek Old Testament which has known translation issues in itself from the original Hebrew. It was a source of controversy at the time of the creation of septuagint over the errors in the Septuagint translation.
No Biblical texts were ever originally written in the language actually spoken in Israel in the Roman era.
What do scholars say about the NIV?
Scholars will consult and quote the NIV, but they are often quick to point out its deficiencies. Still, it's one of the translations that I see most often mentioned in scholarly literature, undoubtedly due in part to its popularity.
guest is Jennifer Knust , problems in translations such as grammar and different langauge family. she did phd in Columbia. she worked on nrsvue.
growing up there were 2 translations ehrman knew, why are ther more translations now.
says niv was reaction to nrsv and translating parthenos which means virgin.
nrsv Isiash 7 translates alma as young woman. niv countered that and put it as virgin.
nrsv was given to truman so it was this incident that made it popular.
ppl toasted the rsv in public at times.
some committes translations represent institutions.
some individuals do it on their own.
10 :00 -
jennifer says prefaces can give context of translations.
she says during zoom in te co days, they would get together and tranlate, she worked with mike homes , previous groups would do it in a room.
she would get replies from editors.
if the disagree on how to translate a word, they would discuss it try to reach a consensus.
doulas means abd.
they can be a doulas of an imperial house and be well off then others.
paul calls himself an abd of Christ but its translated as servant, nrsvue they changed it back to abd, and abds of ppl are called en-abds... national council of churches is copyright holder of rsv, nrsv and nrsvue switched it back to servant due to it being used in churches, not just schools.
but they use footnote tha doulas can mean abd.
she wanted to see the ties of abd in societies and churches...
20 :00 -
doulas is translated as abd in parables or in paul talking about abds and how they should behave...
greek is a gendered langauge, there ia adelpoi or delphoi which can mean siblings, so this can effect translations.
the word for brothers can also include brothers and sisters. at times they would use believers.
so they would put brthers and sisters.
erhman was a researcher and not a translator for nrsv.
erhman's groups had votes.
30 :00 -
ehrman says we don't hve the original new testaments.
how do translators decide which manuscript to translate?
nrsv use europe's and NA's textual criticism.
they try to figure out what the original text says.
many coomittees know kjv have later manuscripts, a few other instances people can't decide.
at times they put in footnotes, other manuscripts say such and such.
paul iin corinthians did he say to the abds, use your oppurtunity, did he mean seek freedom or be good abds?
40 :00 -
the national council of churches used both,
abraham smith represented them in the nrsvue committee.
jenn says every trnaslations confesses their christian bias.
niv was envangelical and translated away the bible contradictions.
thesarus of greek lingo... talks about greek in different times.
word hadass has many meanings.
half acts hogimnan. arsanecotoi... man and bed mushed together 1st ued in 1 corinthians by paul.
49 :45 - nongra khotah - 53 :00
50 :00 -
jenn says kjv is not accurate and not based on earliest greek texts, receptus textus.
says it was a big committee who cared but didn't always agree.
The Bible has already been translated by the best translators alive today in Mauro Biglino and Paul Wallis. Mauro Biglino is very well known and respected for his ability to accurately translate the original Jewish Bible to the Christian Bible used by the Vatican. Paul Wallis is also well known and respected for his knowledge and understanding of scripture. His Eden book series is shining a light on how the Church has kept people in the dark about the true nature of our existence. The problem people have with Mauro's and Paul's accurate translations of the scriptures is that the scriptures have been mistranslated numerous times over the centuries and those mistranslations (probably intentional) have told a very different story from the Jewish Bible. That, along with the intentional editing and omitting of original scriptures (the Books of the Apocrypha) at the First Council of Nicaea, have given us the 'King James' version of the Bible for Western Christianity. You know, the version that shows Jesus as a tall, slender, fair-skinned, long brown-haired white man. LOL. This has lead to many people, such as the ones presenting here, to perpetuate a false narrative regarding what the scriptures are actually telling us. The King James Version is the absolute worst version to use when trying to understand what these stories were about. The Old Testament is not a story about God, it is a story about Extraterrestrial intervention in the 'evolution' of human beings. I've always had a difficult time understanding why people believe in a God for which there is zero evidence and simultaneously reject the idea of Extraterrestrials for which there is a mountain of evidence of hundreds of sightings, videos, pictures and even physical evidence. I suppose it has to do with people fearing that there might not actually be a personal God who answers all our prayers.......because there isn't. Show me some evidence of Gods existence that is verifiable and I will gladly consider it, but since I've been saying that for many years now and no one has presented anything to me I must conclude that no such evidence exists. On the contrary, there is no shortage for evidence of human suffering on a global scale since the beginning of time. That's why the Old Testament is all about the cruelty of the 'Powerful Ones' not God who did heinous things to us in antiquity and are still doing heinous things to us today. Didn't you ever wonder why the 'God(s) of the Old Testament were so different from the God Jesus talked about in the New Testament? The difference is like night and day. Old Testament God(s) wanting to be worshipped and sacrificed to, and cruel beyond the pale. New Testament God no sacrificing, no worshipping, all about love. Anyway, if you have the courage to challenge your beliefs (and most of you don't) here's the link to Mauro and Paul's discussion of what the Bible actually says. ruclips.net/video/ALmXC9oGFSw/видео.html
There is no "jewish bible". There are Torah and Tenakh and there is the NT. Jews don't use the "old testament" as "stories"
The work:readership ratio would be garbage, so it’ll probably happen, but I’d LOVE to see a scholarly translated edition that’s ENTIRELY independent of any church.
This is both fascinating and disheartening. Am I to understand that the NRSVue is the closest thing to literal translation that we can get, but that it is still rife with mistranslations due to the potential religious ideology of the translators and the copyright holders?
Why not print a translation that is not influenced by outsiders eg the National Council of Churches for scholars?
Probably because who’s going to pay them. Usually something like this take a few years to complete.
Can I get an unbiased scholar version please???
You'd have more luck with OT.
has there ever been a translation of the new testament that captures in english the flavor of this famously rough and countrified greek they use?
Sarah Ruden has aspired to do so, at least for the Gospels, in a recent 2021 translation; would highly recommend
Arsenokoites is a term not seen before its usage in 1 Corinthians 6:9 & all later usages are quoting or discussing 1 Corinthian 6:9.
BUT it is two words and those are used together in the same order in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the LXX, of Leviticus 20:13. That verse reads in the NRSVUE ( a translation of the Hebrew, not of the LXX Greek translation:) “If a man lies with a male as with a woman…”
In the LXX putting the pertinent Greek words in gives us, “If arsen koites a male as with a woman…”
Literally it’s “If a male beds a male as a woman…”
If you cram the words into one and change the verb into the participle you get arsenokoites, which then means “a male who beds.”
Sure if you make enough changes it can be what you want.
@@caryblack5985what changes?
Insightful observation. It's clear that Paul is condemning men engaging in a specific behavior, rather than men defined by an inherent way of being (which is how sexual identity is thought of today). "Men bedding men" seems like a good translation for the term wherever it appears in the Greek, or Greek-translated, texts.
@@mirandak3273 So def not layabout then?
But words can be used in different contexts, having different meanings
51:58 Bart is shocked that the translation he worked on had saw/doh/mites.
what is view of Jennifer on the translation of The New World Translation by the Jehovah`s Witnesses religion
Is it possible that there were Aramaic versions of the New Testament written but are now lost? Or were the original works of the New Testament all written in Greek and not translated from any Aramaic versions.
I think scholars are still debating this. I think it is possible, especially given that the Gospels actually preserve a few specific Aramaic terms and expressions attributed to Jesus, but Greek was the more widely read and more prestigious language at that time and place, so there would have been an impetus to render and circulate any putative Aramaic Gospel into Greek from an early stage. I do however think there is pretty much universal consensus that the four canonical Gospels were originally composed in Greek.
Bart has another talk on this. The Gospels were written anonymously in high Greek and they were copies (no originals).
@@barrymoore4470 It seems to me that Christianity is more of a Greek religion than a Jewish one. It was religion that had it success in the Greek speaking region around the Aegean Sea and little success in Palastine. Just my observation.
I certainly can't speak as a scholarly authority, but it's my understanding that, while the common language of the time and place was Aramaic, the SCHOLARLY language of the time and place was Greek. Hence, the few educated men who composed and compiled the Testament probably did so in Greek.
@@johnbennett757 It certainly quickly evolved from a small Palestinian Jewish sect into a predominately, near exclusively Gentile religion, its presence among the Jews in Palestine eventually withering away altogether. At any rate, Greek was the lingua franca of this part of the Mediterranean world, and was the language of education and high culture in the eastern part of the Roman empire.
Great interview!! Would love to see an entire episode dedicated to slavery in the Bible.
Hapax Legomenon: a term of which only one instance of use is recorded
Very interesting, the whole "slave" vs "servant" word she mentioned is very interesting. I totally get why scholars would want word for word translations vs churches:) HA! I would think the safest way to go about something like that is to use the word that best fits the authors point, while at the same time being sensitive to current language society uses:) However, that may not be full proof, because she mentioned for example, "Paul being a servant/slave to (in) Christ." Concerning that one in particular, I'd want the word for word, because that's like two very different meanings. I mean, a servant seems willing to serve in my mind, but a slave seems made to serve despite one's willingness. OMG! What to do? What to do?
If I read Paul saying he was Christ's slave, I would know what he means by that comment. My brain wouldn't go to, OH SNAP! Jesus is forcing Paul to do all this, haha.
@@clinchleatherwood1012
HA! I'm with ya, but I can't say every body who ever read it would know to think that:)
What to do is translate it properly. If Paul meant servant, he would have said servant - the word for that was (and still is) "υπηρέτης" - ypirétis.
I would very much appreciate a discussion on the evidence we have that the Gospels were written in Greek and not in Hebrew as tradition has it.
I'm curious...Where is it a tradition that the New Testament -- or even just the Gospels -- were written in Hebrew and not Greek? I can understand the uneducated layman guessing that it was written in Hebrew, or even English, but is it really a "tradition" anywhere?
I second the question. Who says the gospels were written in Hebrew? I've never heard that
Catholics think, as Jerome did, that adelphoi means cousins, because the Gospel authors were Hebrew speaking Jews and wrote Greek as if it were Hebrew. Which uses the same word for cousin and brother.
But uses specific designations for members within the kinship system.
I wonder what percentage of motivation for a new translation is Bible sales. It has to play a role. Bible collection is a thing. Collect all 327!!! Great interview, Bart. Not as good as Megan, of course, but great.;)
One thing that always got me about people that believed in Biblical inerrancy or infallibility is that I never encountered anyone who actually read the translators' marginal notes or footnotes (much less the preface) and thus were never aware that variant readings even existed, despite the fact that the pages of the Bible they held in their hand were covered in tiny superscript letters and numbers referring them to notes that explained these things. I remember in one case, I cited one of these notes to a woman who just stared blankly and kept asking me if I was citing some kind of "Skeptic's Bible." I'm like, no... these are the translators notes from the committees that translated the NIV, NASB, etc. She would respond, "huh?" Then ask me again if I was referring to some kind of "atheist thing about the Bible." And around and around we went. 🤣
Coming originally from a country where issues e.g. trans-Atlantic slavery is not a relevant issue, it is interesting for me to hear that American Bible translators consciously adjust their translation to pander to the prejudices of their readers. I'm not criticising the American translators -- it's just interesting to see this happening. I was also quite surprised recently when comparing the modern translations in my own language against e.g. the King James, how often the King James uses "servant" where our local translations simply use "slave".
How is Hapax Logonema not a Roman consul’s name?
HOW.
Because hapax legomena is Greek, and the Romans spoke Latin. :)
@@tchristianphoto Well... Greek-speaking lands were part of the empire and if I recall, Greek was widely spoken throughout. Didn't Aurelius write his famous philosophy works in Greek, before getting strangled by the Joker?
@@tchristianphoto Also, Xanax should be the name of a Trojan War general or crewman on the Argo, not a psych drug.
Who has time to pay attention to the Hebrew version?
Actually, Orthodox Jews read the Hebrew text of the pentateuch every Saturday, completing it in an annual cycle (in addition to reading certain portions of the Tanakh as well)
Can you rule out 'lazybones' for 'manbed' ?
You could, but it also depends on the passage in what Paul is describing if reading carefully
Let's just put it this way: when Greek speakers of the first century said "slavebed," they didn't mean a lazy slave. They meant someone who has sexual intercourse with a slave. And when they said "motherbed," they meant someone like Oedipus. You get the picture.
@@MAMoreno Ok. Guess that clears that up then.
Consensus is a point of view that you don't totally agree with; but can support. There is usually some quid pro quo.
I'd like to add one more possible problem. It has to do with the way ancient languages are taught. The ubiquitous "grammer translation method" is being attacked by some "comprehensible input method" classical scholars. The general argument being that to really know a language you need to be able to speak (at least a little) that language.
Slave comes from Slav/Slavic. The Servile wars would them mean The Servant Wars?