Sunday, September 22, 2024

Ancient Scribes and Modern Translators - and the Bible

What one reads in one’s New Testament (NT) is largely determined by these two groups, ancient scribes and modern translators. An ancient scribe is a literate person who makes a living by copying manuscripts. They, of course, were, at one time, living, breathing people with opinions and prone to errors. A modern translator is a person linguistically skilled in the ancient form of the Greek language called koine (the common dialect of the Hellenistic and Roman periods) and in the target language of the translation—in this case English. They too are living, breathing people with opinions and prone to errors. And both groups in their time contribute to what a NT text says.

            The original author of a text produces an “autograph,” which is an author’s original, first-copy of a text. When completed, the autograph determined what the text originally said. Alas, at that point the author loses control of the written text. Scribes will make copies of the autograph and in so doing will introduce errors and make other deliberate changes in the copies they produce. And still other scribes will make further copies of the text from the first copies and introduce further errors and changes.

At this point a third group becomes involved in a text’s transition from koine Greek into English: the textual critic. There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Alas, the original autographs no longer survive and existing copies differ from one another.1 Textual critics aim to restore the readings of the original autograph, and periodically publish a koine Greek edition of the NT, showing in an apparatus at the bottom of pages the numbers of significant differences existing among the manuscripts of the Greek NT. Text critics decide the most probable readings, which are published in the text above the apparatus. The 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek NT is the current edition from which translators work.

The judgments of text critics as to the readings of the original author’s copy of a NT text are not always accepted by translators of the text, resulting in different readings between translations. In other words, each translated version of the NT differs in some degree. Here is one example. One finds in Mark 1:41 different readings between the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and The Revised English Bible (REB). The NRSV follows the text critical judgment that Mark’s autograph originally read in Mark 1:41 “moved with pity” (splagxnistheis), while the REB follows a lesser supported reading “moved to anger” (orgistheis). Text critics selected the reading “pity” as the original reading because they could easily understand why an ancient scribe would change anger to pity but could not so easy understand why a scribe would change pity to anger. In the end the committee was more impressed with the superior support of manuscripts that read pity rather than the less impressive manuscript support for anger.2

I noted fourteen other instances where scribal changes contributed to different readings in the translation of the Gospel of Mark between the NRSV and REB.3 While these changes are not particularly significant, they are enough to make the point that the NT read in the church today is as much a human book as a divine book. The autographs were written by imperfect human beings, prone to error, and, in any case, the autographs no longer exist. Virtually all the over five thousand manuscripts of the Greek NT come from the third century and later. Scribes have introduced innumerable new readings into their copies, both deliberate and accidental. And translators decide what readings they will translate. Hence, it is misleading to refer to the NT as the “Word of God.” If the texts were initially divinely inspired, their words, both Greek and English, were, and still are, decided by human beings.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

1Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1992), v.

2Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed., 3rd printing; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1998), 65. Note that one other reading in Mark attributes anger to Jesus but without a scribal change to pity: Mark 3:5.

3Here are the other fourteen instances in Mark: 3:14, 32; 6:22, 41, 47; 7:4, 35; 9:42; 10:2; 11:19; 12:23; 14:39, 68; 15:10.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

Thank you for continuing to bring the details and content of the work of scholars to the general public. I would use your article as one argument for why its best to read the Jesus quotes as representing an attitude rather than something he literally said. It's very hard to accept that Jesus' words survived decades of transmission in their original literal form; plus there was the strong belief in the immanent return of the Christ that would seem to work against literal memory. As you are aware, I've taken the Jesus Seminar votes for authentic Jesus sayings and divided them into eight attitudes, as follows: make your life count, live with goal oriented passion, be other centered in relationships, encourage the powerless, use your money for unselfish purposes, be flexible and creative in the interpretation of tradition, replace anxiety with trust, and take on outreach responsibility.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene, thanks for your comment. You do well to remind us how unreliable human memory is. Sorting out the sayings of Jesus into what he probably said from what is improbable is an exercise involving written sources and knowledge of the local social terrain. Our "probable saying" is only the tip of the spear with several years of oral tradition behind it; it is the earliest recoverable form of the saying, given the literary sources available and the fact that tape recorders were not available to his disciples.
Cordially,
Charlie