A New Series on Isaiah’s Suffering Servant Our Easter series addresses a set of textual problems that are crucial to the identity of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. John D. MeadeAs Easter approaches, many Christians will be remembering the gospel of Christ, that he died for our sins, was buried, and was raised “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3–4). No doubt, one scripture that many will read during holy week will be Isaiah 52:13–53:12, also known as the fourth servant song. This passage is a crucial text for understanding the events that took place in Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago. Numerous questions surround this famous text, the most important of which is the identity of the servant. Four servant songs Isaiah 52:13–53:12 is the last and by far the most famous of Isaiah’s four servant songs. In all four, the vexing question is the identity of the servant. In the first song (Isa. 42:1–9), Isaiah presents the nation of Israel as the servant. In the second (Isa. 49:1–13), at first, Israel is identified with the servant (49:3) but then, shockingly, the servant is tasked to turn Jacob back to the Lord and to gather Israel to him (49:5). The servant must be one who can both embody the nation and be distinct from it at the same time, as a king who represents his people completely. The third and fourth servant songs (50:4–9; 52:13–53:12) read straightforwardly, if the servant is the future king, David’s awaited descendant. Thus, the last three of the servant songs can be read as speaking about the one king in relationship to the nation: he embodies and represents the nation totally, but he must also now intervene and save the nation. The servant’s identity But not all readers arrive at this conclusion and interpretation has been varied. The identity of the servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12 has been debated from the beginning. In Acts 8:26–35, the Ethiopian eunuch is reading the prophet Isaiah, but he does not know how to interpret Isaiah 53:7–8. The eunuch asks Philip to help him understand, “I ask you, concerning whom does the prophet say this? Concerning himself or concerning another?” (Acts 8:34). Philip begins from this scripture to preach Jesus to him. The identity of the servant has been debated from the beginning. Today, debate over the identity of the Servant continues to divide interpreters. Jewish interpreters typically say the servant is the nation of Israel. Most Christian interpreters claim the servant is Jesus the Messiah, while some commentators continue to hold that the servant is the prophet. Have most Christians been wrong for 2,000 years in interpreting the servant as Jesus? To answer this, we need to ask a prior question about the textual transmission of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. The text The more fundamental question is what the text of the song is. English Bible readers may not be aware that there are several important problems in the textual history of this passage that affect translation and therefore interpretation. In fact, our major English versions disagree on which manuscripts preserve the original text, and therefore, they disagree at several key points within this passage. And these are no minor differences. They center on the servant’s identity and work, his suffering and death, his burial, his resurrection, and his bearing of sins and intervention at the rebellions of the many. Indeed, the problems cluster around the very tenets of the Gospel that Paul says he received as of chief importance (1 Cor. 15:3–5). A new series Over the weeks leading up to Easter, the Text & Canon Institute will be addressing some of the most important textual problems in the fourth servant song. Dr. Peter Gentry, Dr. Anthony Ferguson, and I will guide readers through these difficulties. We will treat these five textual issues: Does the servant startle the nations because he is disfigured or sprinkle them after being anointed? (Isa. 52:14–15) Is the servant stricken for the people’s rebellion, or are they? (Isa. 53:8) Is the servant’s death or his tomb that is with the rich? (Isa. 53:9) Who and what does the servant intercede for? (Isa. 53:12) Is the resurrection of the servant anticipated in what he sees? (Isa. 53:11) We want to help readers see the problems in the textual history of this passage by comparing English translations and commentaries. When readers see the analysis of difficulties in our primary sources, they can appreciate how textual criticism aims to determine the probable, original text and how those decisions influence Bible translation at the most fundamental level. Since texts were copied by hand, those hands sometimes changed the text when copying it. Many of these modifications are insignificant, but in Isaiah 52:13–53:12, there are important differences to the text we would do well to note and form opinions about. Join us this Easter season for a series of articles on the intersection between textual criticism and Bible translation as we give a deep reading of one of the most significant passages that informs us about the person and work of Christ. Be sure to subscribe to get the new articles in the series in your inbox. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human:
Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible The most widely read English Bible translation has sprouted a series of fictions about it. It’s time to prune them. Timothy BergFinding praise for the 1611 King James Bible (KJB) is not hard. It is “the single most influential book in the English language and arguably the greatest work ever completed by a committee” according to Hannibal Hamlin and Norman Jones in their edited book marking the 400th anniversary of the KJB. Showing just how influential it has been on our language, renowned linguist David Crystal traces hundreds of expressions it cemented into the English mind while Angelica Duran, English professor at Purdue, has edited a book arguing that the KJB transcends English, rising to the level of a key text in world literature and achieving a global impact. All this praise is warranted. But when a book blossoms into such a literary lotus, myths also begin to sprout. Grains of truth rendering them plausible grow into weeds of fiction. Blocking the light of contrary facts and pilfering life-giving nuance, truth eventually withers. The following are seven myths about the KJB that now need pruning. Myth 1: The KJB isn’t copyrighted Many claim the KJB is not copyrighted and can be reproduced freely. Through American eyes the KJB is “public domain” (see, for example, the work of Roger Syn and Jason Cohn), but it was printed under patent to the royal printer or “crown copyright,” with permissions later extended to the university presses at Cambridge and Oxford. Since the copyright has never lapsed in the UK, its unenforceability in the US reflects not an absence of copyright but rather a disregard of the KJB’s creators. Roger Syn explains that after the Revolutionary War, “English patents were disregarded. This caused the Authorised Version – still protected by royal patents – to enter the public domain outside the United Kingdom.”1Roger Syn, “Enforcement of Copyright in the Bible and Religious Works,” Regent University Law Review 14.1 (2001–2002): 12. The copyright at Cambridge University Press requires the abbreviation “KJV” following all citations, which cannot exceed 500 verses or 25 percent of a document. You can learn more on the enduring KJB copyright here. Myth 2: The KJB was a new translation Some deem the KJB a new translation—an original language text, freshly translated on blank pages from the original languages. In fact, the translators actually worked on unbound pages of the Bishops’ Bible. The first rule of their procedures commanded that this text “be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.” Miles Smith’s preface to the KJB was clear on this point too: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better.” Samuel Ward, one of the revisers, reported that “caution was given that an entirely new version was not to be furnished, but an old version, long received by the Church, to be purged from all blemishes and faults.” Existing quarries were mined for lexical gold. Rule 14 required using five prior Bibles “where they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible.” The KJB preface records digging “out of many good” Bibles to make “one principal good one,” thereby rendering “better” what prior translators had “left so good.” They were now “building on their foundation that went before us,” being helped by their labors, which could now be “rubbed and polished.” The “former translations” were “diligently compared and revised” as the very title page boasts of its “newly translated” work. The KJB is thus best understood as a thorough revision of the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible, carefully rendering the original languages and mining prior Bibles for verbal ore. The King James Bible is best understood as a thorough revision, carefully rendering the original languages and mining prior Bibles for verbal ore. Myth 3: The text of the KJB has never changed It’s not uncommon for King James readers to assume their KJB is textually identical to the 1611, except for spelling. This isn’t true. Frederick Scrivener, a major scholar of the KJB, concluded from his study that “numberless and not inconsiderable departures” from the 1611 abound in modern editions, mostly “deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority” by unnamed men. He listed over fifty pages of variations from the 1611 edition that had been adopted by later editions and that he retained. He also gives more than twenty pages of variations from the 1611 that he rejected in his own edition of the KJB. David Norton’s more recent study of the textual history of the KJB scrupulously lists over 150 pages of variant readings supporting his updated edition. Most changes to the original text were made in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 editions, others in hundreds of humbler editions. These alterations are extremely minor compared to differences between distinct translations (say, KJB vs. NKJV) and so, they shouldn’t be exaggerated. At the same time, they shouldn’t be minimized either. D. A. Waite, for example, did this when he compared an audio version of the Old Scofield Reference Bible and a 1611 facsimile, and said he heard only 421 changes. Setting aside changes of form, he claimed there were only 136 changes of “substance” from 1611 to today.2D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 3rd ed. (Old Paths, 2006), 4–5. A pastor in North Carolina called for a recount; using the same two editions in print, he enumerated over 2,000. Waite’s count was reportedly updated some but still gets repeated. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Myth 4: The translators spoke in unison Some treat the KJB as its architects’ united opinion. If one suggests that alterations are needed to the KJB the response today is sometimes, “Why contradict so many brilliant scholars?” But we should not imagine that all the translators reached some sort of consensus in a large meeting room. Instead, the KJB is the result of three broad stages of work. The Bible was divided, in 1604, among six companies, one at Westminster, one at Cambridge, and one at Oxford (a Greek and Hebrew team at each). Some of these subdivided. Individuals were to bring personal drafts to meetings where a company’s eight or nine men worked over selections. Review was then to take place through other companies and appointed overseers, with input from outside consultants. Twelve men made veto revisions in a “general meeting” at Stationers’ Hall in 1610. Several final editors added para-textual material and finishing touches. An elaborate process of cross-checking was envisioned, but scholars still debate the amount completed. Most agree that some was skipped. The translators met in small groups in tiny rooms; they never met all together. Further, the KJB ultimately reflects, not unanimous votes, but veto decisions. Rules 9–10 explained that, where differences remained, they would be settled “at the general meeting” (step two of the process). The translators’ handwritten revisions in a 1602 Bishops’ Bible. Bodleian Library Arch. A b.18 For example, in Luke 2:22, the translators’ base text read “her purification,” explaining why Mary brought Jesus to the temple, without any notes. Virtually all the textual data read “their” purification (including either Joseph or Jesus in the purification). Greek texts at the time differed. A manuscript in the Bodleian Library in Oxford shows a back-and-forth between reviewers. At Luke 2:22, this manuscript shows that “her” is first crossed out in the text, “their” written above, and then “her” is again added to the margin. This proposed revision and note got crossed out. Then “her” stood in the text and “their” in the margin. This revision too was overturned. The KJB ended where it began: “her” in the text and nothing in the margin. Documentary evidence vividly challenges any assumption that the translators always agreed. Myth 5: Little is known about the KJB’s formation Some today think that loss of records has obscured the KJB’s formation. It’s true that data has been lost, but what remains is impressive. Bod. 1602, the manuscript just mentioned, records revisions to various texts assigned to four different companies. Another manuscript at Lambeth Palace (Ms. 98) records revisions to another company. More recently, Jeffery Miller has added Samuel Ward’s Apocrypha notes to this list of documentary evidence. This leaves us extant manuscript work from every company’s assigned text. And this isn’t all. We also have sixteen contemporary accounts of the Hampton Court Conference where the idea for the KJB was first hatched; the receipt for the pages translators worked on; numerous correspondence about the translation, including letters from King James and Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London; copies of the translators’ rules; lists of translators; library records of the translators’ borrowing helps; John Bois’s notes from stage two and his annotated Septuagint; and Samuel Ward’s summary report to the Synod of Dort (a draft of which remains in his own hand). The garden at Hampton Court Palace, where the idea for the King James Bible was born. Stu Smith And documents continue to multiply, as Nicholas Hardy of the University of Birmingham explains. As one of the premier KJB scholars today puts it, Shakespeare scholars only dream of having this kind of data about his plays. Likewise, Hamlin and Jones are right to say that, “Despite the peculiar popular legend that the translation of the KJB is shrouded in mystery, it isn’t. We know a great deal about it.”3Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones, “Introduction: The King James Bible and Its Reception History,” in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, ed. Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 6. Myth 6: The KJB is a perfectly literal translation Some assume the KJB is the most “literal” translation possible, rendering every word with exact precision. Generally speaking, the KJB is more literal than many more recent translations (although even here, Young’s certainly overtakes it). Further, the translators shunned one aspect of exactness which is known as “concordance.” Concordance is the consistent rendering of the same word from the original languages with the same English word whenever feasible. The KJB preface records that the translators instead celebrated verbal variety, untethered by “uniformity of phrasing,” or “ identity of words,” to make “verbal and unnecessary changings.” Alister McGrath illustrates this point using Romans 5:1–11, a text that exemplifies their linguistic liberties. In the KJB, Christians “rejoice” in hope, “glory” in tribulations, and “joy” in God: three distinct words all rendering the same Greek word. More on this myth here. Myth 7: The KJB is written in Old English Finally, many Bible readers today think that the 1611 KJB is unreadable Old English. But, the Oxford English Dictionary traces the following historical stages in the English language: Old English until 1150, Middle English until 1500, Early Modern English until 1700. As a work of Early Modern English, the KJB is certainly still readable. That said, some grammatical forms are foreign. The obvious examples are pronouns like “thee/thou/thy” or “ye”; the possessives “thine/mine”; and verbs ending in -est (2nd person) and -eth (3rd person). Further, Mark Ward rightly cautions readers to be on the lookout for dead words which have fallen out of the language now. He also laments that everyone trips over false friends, words that have dramatically changed their meaning since 1611. That said, if someone can read at a college level and is willing to learn unfamiliar grammar, most of the KJB is not impossible; it merely requires work. Conclusion The KJB is read daily all over the world and is still, by one poll, the most read English Bible in America. Rightly so. It blooms to its greatest beauty when we regularly trim the myths that threaten to crowd it out. When not choked by myths, it provides a visual banquet on which our souls may feast.Notes1Roger Syn, “Enforcement of Copyright in the Bible and Religious Works,” Regent University Law Review 14.1 (2001–2002): 12.2D. A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 3rd ed. (Old Paths, 2006), 4–5.3Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones, “Introduction: The King James Bible and Its Reception History,” in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, ed. Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 6.
Does the Woman Caught in Adultery Belong in the Bible? Jesus’ famous act of mercy is missing in many manuscripts, raising questions about its place in the Bible. Tommy WassermanThe story of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11) is arguably one of the most beloved Jesus stories in the New Testament which includes the familiar quotation, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” However, the story is missing from some ancient manuscripts of John, as noted already by early church fathers like Jerome and Augustine. For this and other reasons, a majority of modern scholars regard the passage as a later insertion, and some even want to remove it altogether from our Bibles. One can imagine the outcry such a radical move could cause. Thus, in his study on early manuscripts and modern translations, Philip Comfort rejected the passage as a non-Johannine interpolation and lamented the habit of printing the tradition at all in editions and translations: “True, the passage has been bracketed, or marked off with single lines … , or set in italics. But there it stands—an obstacle to reading the true narrative of John’s Gospel.”1 Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 116. Andreas J. Köstenberger expresses a similar attitude in his commentary on John: “proper conservatism and caution suggests that the passage be omitted from preaching in churches” and it should not be regarded as “part of the Christian canon.”2 Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 248. More recently, Dan Wallace has suggested that the inclusion of the narrative in modern translations reflects “a tradition of timidity,” implying that at least Protestant churches should but did not yet dare to remove the story from the Bible. The story may well go back to a very early tradition about Jesus and a woman accused of many sins To be sure, the story is often marked out in various ways in both scholarly editions and Bible translations, for example, by double brackets and an accompanying footnote explaining that it is missing in the earliest manuscripts, including Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus from the third and fourth centuries, and goes unmentioned by Greek church fathers until the twelfth century. There is indeed a wide scholarly consensus that the story was not originally a part of the Gospel of John, but on the other hand, it may well go back to a very early tradition about Jesus and a woman accused of many sins, which gradually found its way into John. The earliest reference to such a story is found in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century book of instructions on living a Christian life, which survives in Syriac: But if you do not receive him who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Savior and our God, to do even as He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, and departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: “Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?” She said to him: “Nay Lord.” And He said unto her: “Go, neither do I condemn you.” In this then let our Savior and King and God, be to you a standard, O bishops, and imitate Him.3Did. apost. 7; transl. by Arthur Vööbus Eusebius (c. 260–c. 340) in his church history attributes a similar story to Papias of Hierapolis (c. 60–130) and the now lost Gospel of the Hebrews. Further, Didymus the Blind (c. 313–398) says he found the story “in certain gospels,” a reference which likely suggests he did not know the passage from John, but from a different gospel. Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) showing a later dash mark in the left margin at the start of John 7:53 (f. 133v) The earliest manuscript evidence for the passage in John is the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae (c. 400 AD) which contains the story in its traditional place both in Greek and Latin on facing pages. Interestingly, later annotators have marked out the story in the margins, probably because it was treated separately in the liturgy. We know that in the assigned reading for Pentecost in the Byzantine liturgy, a lesson is read from John 7:37–8:12, but our story is skipped, likely because it was not present in the manuscripts when the lesson was first constructed. On the other hand, the story was assigned as a lesson at a later stage to celebrate the Feast of Saint Pelagia of Antioch and various other “sinner saints” such as Mary of Egypt, Theodora of Alexandria, and Eudokia of Heliopolis. It is probably no coincidence that the story first turns up in a Greek-Latin manuscript, because it apparently became established much earlier in the Latin West even though it clearly originated in Greek. Indeed, the story was assigned a chapter in Latin manuscripts at an early stage, probably in the early third century. The Latin church father Ambrose of Milan (c. 340–397) knew it from the traditional place in John and cited it in different writings but in varying textual form. Perhaps this was because he translated the story himself from one or several Greek manuscripts. Ambrose’s contemporaries Jerome and Augustine were familiar with the Johannine story as well, but both acknowledged that it was not in every copy. When Jerome cited the passage in an argument against the Pelagians, he mentioned that he found it “in many copies of the Gospel of John,” and therefore not in all of them. When he completed his new Latin translation of the Gospels (as part of the Vulgate) several decades earlier, he had chosen to include the story in John. In doing so, he guaranteed its abiding presence in the Latin Christian tradition. The story was also incorporated in the Roman liturgy perhaps some time in the fifth century. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Augustine, who cited the passage about a dozen times, was also aware of its absence in some manuscripts. He even proposed an explanation why the story could have been omitted, suggesting that “men of slight faith” deleted it because they were afraid that their wives might commit adultery after hearing about the woman (On Adulterous Marriages 7.6). A few modern scholars who defend the story as original to the Gospel of John have argued along similar lines, that scribes may have excluded the pericope because Jesus is too lenient toward the sinner. However, this is highly unlikely, because scribes and scholars were trained never to delete, even when they doubted the authenticity of a given passage, and, besides, there was a long and widespread affection for stories about adulterous women across the ancient world (as reflected in other passages in the New Testament). There was a long and widespread affection for stories about adulterous women across the ancient world. Although the story is not preserved in any surviving Greek gospel manuscript before the eighth century, apart from Codex Bezae, there are still other traces of the story in the East too. For example, two ivory pyxides, likely Coptic in origin, are certain attestations of the story in an Egyptian setting. These two boxes depict the forgiven adulteress among other scenes from the life of Jesus. In a sixth-century Syriac chronicle there is reference to a Gospel manuscript, likely in Greek, in the possession of Bishop Mara (d. 532 AD), which had a “chapter” peculiar to the Gospel of John, but that this chapter was not found in other copies. Then follows a version of John 8:2–11. There is much to suggest that the story had been assigned its own “chapter” (kephalaion) in Greek gospel manuscripts no later than the fifth century. Unlike our modern chapters, this particular system of “Old Greek chapters” marks out the highlights in each of the four gospels with a focus on Jesus’ miracles and teachings. Thus, the first kephalaion in John was placed at John 2:1 (the wedding in Cana). Most extant Byzantine manuscripts contain eighteen chapters in John, but some add a nineteenth chapter—the story of the adulteress—as chapter ten. The story of the woman caught in adultery in Minuscule 1 (12th c.) is located at the end of the manuscript with a long, explanatory note about it. INTF In several important medieval manuscripts that represent a family of manuscripts (known as Family 1), at the end of John 7 where one expects to find our story there is instead a critical note to inform the reader concerning “the kephalaion concerning the adulteress,” that it is not found in most manuscripts, nor mentioned by the divine fathers John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia and the rest. This ancient scribe or editor, probably working in the fifth century, decided to relocate the story to the end of John, where it is found in this family of manuscripts. By this time, then, the popular story had already been inserted into John and even assigned its own chapter in some manuscripts but was omitted or relocated in others. Today, the large majority of surviving Greek manuscripts of John include the story. It is read in the Byzantine liturgy and thus accepted as inspired by the Greek Orthodox Church. It is part of the canonical Vulgate used by the Catholic Church, and it is present in virtually all Protestant Bible versions albeit often marked with brackets and footnotes. On the other hand, it is clear that the story was interpolated into the Gospel of John at an early point in a climate of Gospel book production in which the story was regarded as “gospel.” Incidentally, from the concluding verse of the Fourth Gospel we learn that many stories about things that Jesus did were in circulation, some of which had not yet been written down (John 21:25), but genuine “gospel stories” all the same I presume. So, should the beloved story of the Woman Caught in Adultery be read in our churches? Yes, I think so. The story has the earmarks of a genuine gospel story albeit not original to John.Notes1 Philip Wesley Comfort, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1990), 116.2 Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, BECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), 248. 3Did. apost. 7; transl. by Arthur Vööbus
Taking Stock of the “First-Century Mark” Saga What can we learn from the overzealous excitement about the earliest known copy of our earliest Gospel? Elijah HixsonThe “First-Century Mark” saga is an unfortunate series of events surrounding an early papyrus fragment of Mark’s Gospel that began publicly in late 2011 and, at the time of this writing, is still not fully resolved. The story begins with a tweet from Dr. Scott Carroll on December 1, 2011, “For over 100 years the earliest known text of the New Testament has been the so-call[ed] John Rylands Papyrus. Not any more. Stay tuned . . . .” At the time, Dr. Carroll was working for the Green family who owns Hobby Lobby, helping them to purchase the materials that would eventually form the basis of the Museum of the Bible’s collection. The news of Carroll’s “earliest known text” began to make headlines in February 2012, when Dan Wallace used a debate with Bart Ehrman to announce the existence of a fragment of Mark’s Gospel that an unnamed, world-class paleographer had dated to the first century. The announcement surprised Ehrman and the audience. Allegedly, this item was part of a private collection and was to be published shortly thereafter. Years came and went, and no first-century Mark fragment was ever published. Wallace could not give more information because he had signed a non-disclosure agreement that barred him from speaking about the manuscript until it had been published. Years came and went, and no first-century Mark fragment was ever published. It was not long before rumors about the fragment made their way to the popular level. Apologists and scholars (e.g., Dr. Craig Evans and Dr. Gary Habermas) saw it as powerful evidence for the reliability of the Christian message. After years of speculation and what seemed like leaked information, an early fragment of Mark was finally published in the Spring of 2018 in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series—a series of papyri owned by the Egypt Exploration Society (EES)—not a private collection. The EES collection was excavated over a century ago in modern-day Al-Bahnasa, Egypt. This meant the new fragment was not part of a private collection but one that had been known and studied for over 100 years. As I quickly put the pieces together, it became clear that this tiny manuscript, designated P.Oxy. 5345 (or P137), was the “First-Century Mark.” The earlier dating was simply incorrect, and there had been confusion as to who owned the manuscript and how it would be published. It was not owned by the Greens and it was not from the first century after all. A great deal of the speculation was simply wrong. P.Oxy. LXXXIII 5345 (or P137), containing Mark 1:7–9, 16–18, measures just 4.4 × 4 cm. Wikipedia Far from resolving the issue, the publication raised new and more serious questions. Most of these revolved around the fact that P137, according to some reports, had been offered for sale to a private collection (presumably the Greens’). The serious problem with this situation is that unpublished papyri in the Oxyrhynchus Collection cannot be sold. (Early on, some of the collection’s published papyri were given away to other institutions, but this was quite different.) The EES responded to the startling suggestions by issuing a statement saying that the fragment “has never been for sale, whatever claims may have been made arising from individual conversations in the past.” We now know this is not true. It has since come to light that P137 was indeed offered for sale to Hobby Lobby along with other papyri without authorization from the EES, allegedly by someone working for the EES who had access to the manuscripts. The excavations at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt around 1900 uncovered thousands of papyri, including the now infamous P137. Wikipedia As of November 2019, the EES had “identified around 120 pieces which appear to be missing,” and in February 2021, they reported that “The police investigation in the UK is continuing into the unauthorised removal of texts from the EES collection and their sale to Hobby Lobby and others.” Someone had been trying to pawn the EES’s papyri from right under their noses. The prime suspect is none other than Wallace’s world-class paleographer. The matter has not been resolved, and a police investigation is ongoing so we are limited as to what more we could say. At the time of writing, Obbink has been living in a houseboat in England and avoiding authorities. Although the story is still not fully resolved, now is a good time to step back and consider lessons learned from the “First-Century Mark” saga. Here are four suggestions. 1. If something sounds too good to be true, it might be. Assume it is until there is an informed scholarly consensus. A consensus can be wrong, but it is the purpose and nature of scholarship to find and eliminate weak points in the argument. As the external examiner at my own PhD examination said to me as we began, “It is my job to shake this thesis as hard as I can and see if I can get any bits of it to fall out.” Such is the nature of good scholarship, and a consensus is almost always on firmer grounds than a lone objector—especially in the context of arguing a position. P137 was not the first manuscript claimed to be from the first century,1See Peter J. Gurry and Elijah Hixson, “Introduction” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2019), 14–20. and none of the others claimed first-century New Testament papyri has proven to be so. However, it’s worth mentioning that the descriptions of the person who dated the manuscript left little to the imagination with regard to his identity. There was never much doubt that the unnamed paleographer was probably Dirk Obbink, and these suspicions turned out to be correct. At the time, Obbink was among the most respected and influential papyrologists alive. Recently, I spoke to another papyrologist who described Obbink as being the LeBron James of papyrology. Dr. Dirk Obbink was a professor at Oxford and one of the world’s foremost experts on ancient papyri. (Photo) Simply put, in 2011, Dirk Obbink’s word was gospel when it came to dating papyrus manuscripts, and it would have been reasonable to take Obbink at his word. Still, good practice is to wait for a consensus. Years later, when P137 was published, the date that was always traced back to a single specialist had changed—by the same specialist. 2. Overhyped expectations can result in undervaluing the actual evidence. Once the cat was out of the bag, the popular-level response to “First-Century Mark” led to unjustified expectations from several sources. P137 is still an amazing discovery! It is probably the oldest manuscript of Mark in existence. It is almost certainly the oldest manuscript of Mark 1:7–9, 16–18. Nevertheless, because the expectation was for a first-century manuscript, some were disappointed. When we raise our expectations higher than what the facts allow, we set ourselves up to be disappointed. For example, when we teach that the Rylands fragment (or P52), which is our earliest New Testament manuscript, was written “around 125” or even “as early as AD 100,” we are setting people up to be disappointed when they find out that manuscript dating cannot be so specific. The more accurate date is the full range of the second century. Even a date in the 190s is still remarkably early, relatively speaking. But, when the expectation is significantly earlier, even a remarkably good piece of evidence backfires and leaves people feeling empty and let down. 3. Don’t cite unpublished research. A significant problem with “First-Century Mark” was that it was unpublished for so long. Without publication, it was impossible to verify or challenge, not only the date, but also the contents, the quality of the text, and even the very existence of the fragment itself. It is true that some unpublished expertise can be extremely valuable (especially if it comes from a source with Obbink’s authority on manuscript dating), and it is also true that mere publication does not prove a theory or mean that an article is correct—and this is especially relevant in the world of self-publishing. Still, any academic publisher worth its paper and ink will have sent the research to at least one other competent set of eyes to look for holes in the arguments, to verify claims, and to see if the argument holds up under scrutiny. 4. Show integrity at earliest possible opportunity. Although he has been rightly criticized for announcing the unpublished and unverifiable “First-Century Mark” at a debate, Wallace was right to admit his mistake once the fragment was published and he was no longer bound by the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Wallace apologized for his actions, both to Ehrman “and to everyone else for giving misleading information about this discovery.” The Museum of the Bible has also owned its mistakes and expedited the process of returning items known to be acquired for their collection under the seller’s pretense. Claims that P137 had been offered for sale were not initially taken seriously by the EES (and not without reason). It wasn’t until Michael Holmes, acting on behalf of the Museum of the Bible, shared with them the purchase agreement for some papyri and a handwritten list describing their contents in June 2019 (first publicized by Brent Nongbri on his blog) that these claims were taken seriously. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: The EES quickly confirmed that the fragments described in the handwritten list were indeed P137 and other Oxyrhynchus Papyri in their collection. Once a representative from the Museum released evidence that there was something shady going on, an investigation was undertaken. One of the results is that thirty-four papyri in the Museum collection were identified as having been “taken without authorisation from the EES” and were returned to the EES. Should the Green Collection/Museum of the Bible have been more diligent to determine legal provenance before purchasing the papyri? Absolutely. However, regardless of what other criticisms one might have for the Museum of the Bible, this is one way they did the right thing. They had items that they suspected had been stolen, and they worked to make it right. Not every institution is willing to give back stolen artifacts, but in this case, the Museum was not only willing to do so, but they also had to convince the EES that the papyri had been stolen in the first place. Would that we also would have such a zeal for the right thing that we would pursue it even when it costs us to do so. In neither case did the offending party try to quietly put away their wrongs. They didn’t silently delete evidence of their wrongs or give a quiet, half-hearted apology and move on—they publicly took responsibility for their wrongs and did what they could to make them right as much as possible. That’s a good lesson for all of us.Notes1See Peter J. Gurry and Elijah Hixson, “Introduction” in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity (2019), 14–20.
How Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove? The Great Isaiah Scroll is a crucial piece of the Old Testament puzzle, but it doesn’t give us the whole picture. Anthony FergusonThe Dead Sea Scrolls are famous. Very famous. Unlike other archeological discoveries like Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel inscription in Jerusalem or the discovery of the Elephantine Papyri in Egypt, the term “Dead Sea Scrolls” is a household phrase that can draw crowds to museums unlike any cuneiform tablet. Almost everyone has some knowledge of this discovery and significance, and rightly so. The most famous—and substantial—of these biblical manuscripts is, without a doubt, the Great Isaiah Scroll (a manuscript scholars designate as 1QIsaa). The factors that justify this manuscript’s notoriety and fame include the timing of its discovery, its size, its contents, and its closeness to the Hebrew text behind our English Bibles known as the Masoretic Text (MT). Given these facts, 1QIsaa furnishes a solid starting point for one’s study of these intriguing texts from the Dead Sea. But these facts sometimes lead one to unhelpful conclusions about the biblical texts from the Dead Sea, if 1QIsaa is all we know or we assume that every biblical manuscript from the Dead Sea is like it. In this article, we’ll survey the importance of this manuscript while also nuancing its impact on our understanding of the biblical text as preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Its Claim to Fame The timing of the manuscript’s discovery rightly contributed to its fame since it belonged to the first batch of manuscripts discovered in early 1947. When Bedouin first journeyed into Cave 1 to explore the sound of breaking jars, they retrieved three or four manuscripts wrapped in cloth from a jar. One of these manuscripts was the now famous 1QIsaa. This discovery encouraged the Bedouin and scholars to further explore this region so that over the next fifteen years roughly 1000 manuscripts would be discovered. The cascade effect of this initial discovery was truly immense. Unlike most manuscripts from the Judean Desert, 1QIsaa is preserved almost in its entirety. This is due to its being stored in a jar covered with pitch. By God’s grace, it sat for millennia in a sort of sealed time capsule. Because this manuscript is well preserved, the various problems associated with fragmentary manuscripts like calculating column heights and hypothesizing about what words have been lost to the harshness of the desert are almost nonexistent when studying 1QIsaa. One of the remarkable features of the Great Isaiah Scroll is how well it’s preserved, including the very beginning (right) and end (left) of the scroll. Photo from Wikipedia The very first words and the last words of the manuscript are all preserved, and the text consists of only a few holes (i.e., lacunae). Stitching holes exist in the right-hand margin of column 1 which indicates that leather once existed to the right of the first words of Isaiah. There was probably once a handle sheet to the right of the first column to protect the text of this manuscript. The handle sheet has done its job since, although it has since been lost to time, the beginning of the document remains. The contents of this manuscript have also brought it a level of notoriety since it preserves the text of Isaiah, one of the more famous books of the Old Testament. This book appears to have been quite popular among the works found in the library of the Dead Sea since many copies of Isaiah were found there. The New Testament quotations of Isaiah suggest the same as does the amount of attention paid to this important book by contemporary scholars. Christians sometimes refer to Isaiah as the fifth Gospel because of how much it tells about the coming hope of the Messiah. Although Bedouin discovered other texts alongside 1QIsaa such as a commentary to Habakkuk, 1QIsaa became more popular. This may be, since it was a biblical text, not a commentary, but it is also likely due to the fact that it concerned Isaiah. The popularity of this manuscript is also due to its relationship to the Masoretic Text. The consensus among the first generation of scholars who analyzed this text was that 1QIsaa preserved a popular version of the Masoretic Text. Since the analysis of these scholars, the trend has shifted. Whereas the original scholars who studied 1QIsaa noted its similarities to the Masoretic Text, current scholars tend to highlight its differences. These differences are real, but often minor. Emmanuel Tov, for example, indicates that 1QIsaa is non-aligned but regarding minor details such as a different approach to spelling.1Emanuel Tov, “A Didactic and Gradual Approach toward the Biblical DSS,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3 Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 303. (The term non-aligned refers to texts that are inconsistent in their agreement with the Septuagint, MT, and Samaritan Pentateuch while preserving unique readings).2Emanuel Tov, “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98. We could synthesize the conclusions of scholars this way: early scholars tended to emphasize the similarities between 1QIsaa and the Masoretic Text. The trend, now, is to emphasize the differences. Regardless of one’s emphasis, when one removes the minor differences such as spellings, the text of 1QIsaa is quite close to the Masoretic Text, and this feature is a major reason for its notoriety. The Limits of 1QIsaa to our Understanding of the Biblical Text 1QIsaa contributes immensely to our understanding of the Old Testament text. On the one hand, it is strong indirect evidence to the antiquity of the Masoretic Text. That is, in the cases where 1QIsaa and the Masoretic Text disagree, scholars most often view the reading of the Masoretic Text as more original, and this is for good reason, since most of the differences preserved in 1QIsaa appear to derive from common scribal tendency or from scribal error. Thus, although the Masoretic Text as we know it is best represented by medieval codices dating to around 1000 AD, the parent text of 1QIsaa appears to be a text close to these medieval codices. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: This is where Christian scholars and apologists can make a mistake. 1QIsaa is the most popular biblical Dead Sea Scroll and for good reason. It was one of the first manuscripts discovered and it preserves almost all of Isaiah in a form close to the Masoretic Text. All of this is true. Based on this information, it is tempting to assume that just because 1QIsaa aligns closely to the Masoretic Text, we can therefore be confident that our Old Testament text is a reliable copy of the original. I agree that we should be confident, very confident in this fact, but the problem is that 1QIsaa is not sufficient proof, and this is for a few reasons. First, 1QIsaa is a copy only of Isaiah, not the entire Old Testament. Thus, we can’t conclude that 1QIsaa proves that the entire Old Testament has been copied carefully. It is only a copy of Isaiah. Extrapolating from this one manuscript of this one book to the full copying of the entire Old Testament is dangerous. Second, scholars date 1QIsaa to the second century BC, which makes it our oldest copy of this book. Yet, it is still hundreds of years removed from the original copy of Isaiah. As important as 1QIsaa is, it doesn’t completely close the gap for us. Third, although 1QIsaa remains close to the Masoretic Text, other ancient texts are further removed. There is a spectrum of how close the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Masoretic Text: some are almost identical while other diverge more significantly. My point is simple: since the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a spectrum of more or less agreement with the Masoretic Text, the Great Isaiah Scroll does not represent the entire picture. One (Important) Piece of the Puzzle 1QIsaa does not single-handedly prove that the Old Testament has been carefully copied from antiquity. Its contribution is still important, but less extensive. In short, I would say that 1QIsaa is a popular version of a text very close to the Masoretic Text, and thus, it attests to the antiquity of the Masoretic Text of Isaiah long before our earliest copies from the Middle Ages. The copies we have of the Old Testament are a reliable guide to the original, but this conclusion depends on more than one very famous manuscript. The copies we have of the Old Testament are a reliable guide to the original, but this conclusion depends on more than one very famous manuscript. It depends on a variety of data such as the practice of textual criticism, the study of manuscripts, scribal habits, various early translations, the nature of a covenant, and the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This conclusion also depends on our view of God and what the Bible attests about itself. As we do textual criticism, let’s not forget that the Old Testament testifies to the God who sovereignly controls all things. We make best sense of the biblical data when we carefully consider the evidence while remembering that the evidence we have is not by accident, but according to God’s plan.Notes1Emanuel Tov, “A Didactic and Gradual Approach toward the Biblical DSS,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3 Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 303.2Emanuel Tov, “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98.
Five Decisions Every Bible Translator Must Make Knowing the hard decisions Bible translators face inspires gratitude for our Bibles and encourages us to read them. Peter J. GurryA Bible translation is a major undertaking. A good one can take more than ten years to finish even when a full team is involved. Besides the translators, there is often a team of editors, proofreaders, publishers, printers, marketers, and more. Along the way, a translation committee has thousands of decisions to make, many of which go beyond the most obvious one of deciding how to translate any given word or phrase. Here are five decisions that every translator has to decide—whether their readers know it or not. 1. Who’s the audience? The first decision is arguably the most important because it will determine many other decisions along the way. The first way to define a translation’s audience is, of course, based on what’s called the target language. A translation into German will have a German-speaking audience; a French translation will have French speakers, etc. Though target language is the most obvious form of this question, there is much more to it. Since some language groups like English are so vast and have so many translations already, translation teams often aim their work at a narrower set of readers. American Bible readers are sometimes surprised to learn that major English translations usually result in an American edition and a separate British edition that has British spelling and, in some cases, different word choices. The ESV, for example, has both an Anglicized version and an American version. There is now even a Catholic edition that includes the Apocrypha. In other cases, the choice is not about geography or theology, but reading level. The original NIV was designed to be especially readable, and so was designed for a seventh-grade reading level. But even that audience could be narrowed. That’s why it was revised in a special edition published in 1996 called the New International Reader’s Version or NIrV. It was aimed at a third-grade reading level with the hope of reaching children and readers whose first language isn’t English. This was accomplished by using smaller words and shorter sentences whenever possible. Psalm 23:2 was changed from the NIV’s “He makes me lie down in green pastures” to “He lets me lie down in fields of green grass.” The Lord’s prayer became “Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored. May your kingdom come. May what you want to happen be done on earth as it is done in heaven” (Matt. 6:9–10). These small translation choices add up, but they are all the result of a much larger decision about who the audience is. It’s a choice every translator needs to make. 2. Will it be a fresh translation or a revision? The example of the NIrV illustrates another question that translators have to answer and that is whether their work will be a new translation from the original languages or will instead use the originals to revise an existing translation. The original NIV, for example, was a fresh translation. It was not based on any prior English Bible. The NIrV, as we just saw, started with the NIV and then revised it. It was revised again in 2014. English Bible readers are often surprised to learn that it’s this second approach that is by far the more common one historically. Completely new translations are a relative rarity. The reason is obvious to translators but probably not to most readers. It’s simple: translating the entire Bible is a massive undertaking. Starting from scratch increases the work exponentially. It’s much faster to start from something and change it than to work with nothing. Besides that, revising a well-known translation often gives the new one a much-needed boost in respect and authority. The translators of the most famous English Bible—the King James—knew this well. That’s why in the original preface, they make clear that their work is a revision of previous English Bibles. Their expressed goal was not to “make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,” but only “to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” That tradition of revision continues right up to the present. A special insert in the Chicago Tribune on May 22, 1881 printed the entire New Testament of the Revised Version. It took 92 compositors working 12 hours to produce all 118,000 words from a telegram from New York City. In 1885, the King James itself was finally revised for the first time since 1611 in a major translation.1Dates given in this section are the date when the entire Bible was first published. In many cases, the publication of the New Testament preceded the Old by several years. The result was published to great fanfare as the Revised Version. This was then further revised by a team of scholars in North America and published as the American Standard Version in 1901. The Revised Version was again revised in 1952 as the Revised Standard Version and that, in turn, became the New Revised Standard Version of 1990. Even now, an update to the NRSV is set for release in 2022. A separate translation team went back to the Revised Standard Version in 2001, producing the English Standard Version. Even this doesn’t tell the full story of revisions in the KJV lineage. Objections to translation choices in the RSV (like “young girl” instead of “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14) led to the revision of the ASV known as the New American Standard Bible published in 1971. The NASB itself received a major update in 1995 and now exists in two further revisions known as the NASB 2020 and the Legacy Standard Bible. So, the cycle continues with revision upon revision, each one claiming to improve on its predecessors. Only rarely does an English translation team start from scratch. 3. What text will it translate? Mark 1:41 in Codex Bezae (5th c.), showing the reading with Jesus becoming indignant. British Library Another question that follows closely on the last one is which Hebrew and Greek texts the translators will work from. Because our manuscripts of the Bible have differences and because some of these differences affect translation, translators must sometimes decide what text to translate. Does Jesus become “indignant” before healing a man in Mark 1:41 as the NIV 2011 has it, or does he have “compassion” as virtually all other English Bibles have? In this case, the NIV has (unwisely, in my opinion) chosen to follow the text found in a single Greek manuscript from the fifth century known as Codex Bezae. (The NIV does footnote the alternative reading.) In Genesis 4:8, the English Standard Version, following the standard Hebrew text, says that “Cain spoke to Abel his brother” before killing him in the field but does not tell us what he said. But the Christian Standard Bible, follows the evidence of several ancient translations, including the Septuagint, so that Cain says to his brother, “Let’s go out to the field.” In both Mark 1:41 and Genesis 4:8, the differences are not matters of translation philosophy but of text. In places where textual differences affect translation, translators must decide which text they think is the original and then translate that. Sometimes the choices are difficult, and these are places where Bibles will often alert the reader with a footnote. These decisions illustrate why the finely tuned skill of textual scholars is so important. 4. How will it handle culturally specific terms? A fourth question that translators must wrestle with is how to handle terms that are specific to the time and culture of the Bible. Some of the most common ones are terms for weights and units of measurement. No English speaker knows what an ephah of flour is without help or how much a denarius could buy. And how long is a cubit or a span or a stadion? These are all terms found in the original languages, but translations handle them differently. In some cases, a translation may include a table of weights, measures, and monetary units at the back. The NIV and ESV have one after Revelation, for example. A translation may also explain these terms in footnotes. The ESV footnotes often tell the reader that a denarius is about a day’s wage in the first century. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Another solution is to try to convert these terms into their closest modern equivalent. Paraphrases often take this route. The Living Bible, for example, starts the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matthew 18:23 with a debtor who owes his master, not 10 thousand talents, but 10 million dollars. Later, he reveals his unforgiving heart by trying to collect on $2,000 instead of 100 denarii. The New Living Translation, the successor to the Living Bible, is less specific with “millions of dollars” and then later “thousands of dollars.” Both do a great job conveying the vast difference in amounts, but they must do so by sacrificing something from the original culture in the process. And this is just the tip of the cultural iceberg. Beyond such ancient units of measurement, translators must deal with terms like “Leviathan,” “kinsman-redeemer,” “legion,” “centurion,” not to mention difficult terms for diseases, animals, plants, peoples, and places. Sometimes, translators are at a loss because the precise meaning of the original term is lost to us. At other times, they need to avoid anachronism as with biblical terms for skin ailments that do not actually refer to what we know as “leprosy” or Hansen’s disease. Perhaps future discoveries will clarify, but translators must work with what they have. So, they do the best they can. Their solution is often determined largely by the first question we mentioned: who is the audience? 5. How (much) will the translation explain itself? Finally, many of these questions give rise to this last one which is how and how much the translators will try to explain their decisions to the reader. Most often, this happens through footnotes, but we have already seen other ways that translations can explain their work such as the table of weights and measures. There is also the introduction—but who reads that? (You should!) Translators also have at their disposal features like headings, book introductions, maps, concordances, cross references, appendices and, of course, sometimes study notes. Such aids to the reader can be quite helpful and are found as far back as Bible translations go. It’s little wonder that the first English Bibles, produced by John Wycliffe and his followers in the 14th century, have them too. The Wycliffe Bible oriented its readers with prologues, here showing the one for Mark (left) in Egerton MS 618 (c. 1390–1397), ff. 21v–22r. British Library. The modern Bible that goes the furthest to explain itself is certainly the New English Translation or NET Bible. It was novel at the time, not only because it was provided freely online, but because the translators received mountains of online feedback from its first readers. Today, the NET Bible has over 60,000 translators’ notes, explaining virtually every decision made. The result is a Bible that “explains itself,” pulling the curtain back so to speak. Because of this, it has become something of a favorite among an unexpected audience: other Bible translators. Appreciating Translators These are just five decisions translators must make. There are also many decisions that translators don’t have to make because of the long history of the Bible in English. Things like the names and order of the biblical books as well as their division into chapters and verses are well established by tradition. But that still leaves plenty of work to do besides the most important one which is actually putting Hebrew and Greek into another language. In some cases, one decision affects the others (such as audience) and at other times, decisions cause tension. If you revise a beloved translation too much, for example, you may lose your intended audience. Our judgment of which translation is “best” should always take into account who the audience is. Knowing this leaves us with two important lessons. The first is that our judgment of which translation is “best” should always take into account who the audience is. So many translation decisions are affected by this decision that any fair assessment of a new translation must begin by understanding that. Sometimes, your dislike for a given translation may reflect more the fact that you aren’t the intended audience than it does any failure on the translators’ part. Second, the multitude of decisions translators face should give us a deep appreciation for good translations—and we have many in English. What we’ve covered here are just some of those that have to be made. We haven’t touched on matters like idioms, word order, word plays and other figures of speech, and more. But considering just these five decisions should make us very thankful for the Bibles we have and encourage us to do what every good translator wants us to do with the Bible and that’s to read it. The ESV is a revision of the RSV not the RV as an earlier version of this article stated. It also wrongly called the New Living Translation the New Living Bible and the NET Bible the New English Bible.Notes1Dates given in this section are the date when the entire Bible was first published. In many cases, the publication of the New Testament preceded the Old by several years.