# Are there any bible translations done by atheists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 9, 2008, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861 "2008-01-09T16:21:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/41 "2008-01-11T21:56:56Z")
[QUOTE=muttrox] By the way, an excellent book about Bible Translations is [Misquoting Jesus](http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170). I found it shocking and informative. And not that it matters 🙂 but the author comes in to the topic as a true believer. [/QUOTE] It is a worthwhile book to read but hardly shocking unless you are a hardcore bible fundie book summary: 1. there are lots of NT manuscripts with thousands of minors differences between them - most trivial 2. A few passages in the NT (less than 5% by my count) appear to be late additions and therefore _less_ trustworthy ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2008, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/42 "2008-01-11T22:00:20Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] book summary: 1. there are lots of NT manuscripts with thousands of minors differences between them - most trivial [/QUOTE] How can ANY difference be considered trivial when you are claiming something is THE WORD OF GOD? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/43 "2008-01-12T00:29:18Z")
I started doing a translation of John when I was an atheist. It ended at John 8:58. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/44 "2008-01-12T01:00:18Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] How can ANY difference be considered trivial when you are claiming something is THE WORD OF GOD? [/QUOTE] Assuming you are not just trolling, most christians are quite comfortable with the fact that the bible has been hand-copied for many generations with subsequent minor errors that entails. Just as a mis-type in a late edition of “the Origin of the Species” doesnt invalidate Darwin’s message ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/45 "2008-01-12T05:31:08Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] Assuming you are not just trolling, most christians are quite comfortable with the fact that the bible has been hand-copied for many generations with subsequent minor errors that entails. Just as a mis-type in a late edition of “the Origin of the Species” doesnt invalidate Darwin’s message [/QUOTE] The problem for hardcore fundies, though, is that there is sometimes no way to know which variant is correct and that not all the discrepancies are trivial. We don’t know for sure what any of the original manuscripts said, so there is no way to know for sure what God’s “message” actually was when it was first written. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/46 "2008-01-12T05:37:57Z")
Classical Scholar and noted Homer translator Richmond Lattimore came out with an [NT translation](http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Richard-Lattimore/dp/0460879537/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200115965&sr=8-2) awhile ago. Don’t know what his personal religious beliefs were, but he approached the project as a classisist, not a theologian. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2008, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/47 "2008-01-12T10:15:21Z")
[QUOTE=Skammer] But wouldn’t atheists also have preconceived notions of what the Bible should say? Nobody is going to come to the Bible without some kind of bias; it’s impossible. No one’s mind is a blank slate. [/QUOTE] I would think someone with an anthropology background would fit the bill nicely. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2008, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/48 "2008-01-13T23:59:15Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The problem for hardcore fundies, though, is that there is sometimes no way to know which variant is correct and that not all the discrepancies are trivial. We don’t know for sure what any of the original manuscripts said, so there is no way to know for sure what God’s “message” actually was when it was first written. [/QUOTE] I dont know of any **serious** discrepencies. Can you enlighten me? I am talking about two different texts that say something very different about God, Jesus, his message etc. I can think of one passage which might just fit, but that’s about all. Most people would dismiss the vast majority of the textural differences as essentially trivial. There are scholarly doubts over the authorship and date of parts of Mark and John. To me the two Christmas traditions dont add up and one/both is suspect. One of Paul’s letters probably wasn’t written by him. However, these are impossible to prove without doubt and a fundie would probably accept these passages as given. Even taking the above suspect passages out (\<10% of the NT?), one is left with a hardcore of theology that would define one as Christian and possibly fundamentalist. Of course one could go further and throw doubt on any other part that did not fit your beliefs, but that then becomes more of a theological issue, rather than a scientific/textural analysis of the origin of the bible. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/49 "2008-01-14T00:09:10Z")
[QUOTE=flight] Speaking of commentaries, can someone recommend me a good one? What I am looking for is an annotated bible that identifies key contradictions, points out things that are often thought of as contradictions but are not, and gives a lot of context in order to help with interpreting the original author’s intention. [/quote] [Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) It covers the first part of your request rather well. The last part, not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/50 "2008-01-14T00:33:44Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] I dont know of any **serious** discrepencies. Can you enlighten me? I am talking about two different texts that say something very different about God, Jesus, his message etc. I can think of one passage which might just fit, but that’s about all. Most people would dismiss the vast majority of the textural differences as essentially trivial. [/quote] Most people are not educated about the subject. Google on “Johannine comma” and “Pericope adulterae” for a couple of examples. Read Bart Ehrman’s book, _Misquoting Jesus_ for a detailed treatment of the subject. Even with regards top the trivial differences, the fact remains that there is still no way to tell which, if any, version is authentic. We don’t know what the autographs said and there is reason to suspect that many of the canonical books were tampered with and changed early on (if not outright forged). > [@](#): > > There are scholarly doubts over the authorship and date of parts of Mark and John. To me the two Christmas traditions dont add up and one/both is suspect. The Bible doesn’t say anything about Christmas. I’m guessing you’re referring to the nativity narrative but those are in Luke and Matthew not Mark and John. I’m not sure what you mean about “scholarly doubt” about the authorships of Mark and John. The authors (like the authors of the other two Gospels) are unknown, period. The authorship traditions of “Matthew, Mark, Luke and John” arose in the 2nd century and (for a variety of reasons I won’t go into here) are largely regarded as spurious by mainstream NT scholarship. There is some argument over dating, but not that much. > [@](#): > > One of Paul’s letters probably wasn’t written by him. However, these are impossible to prove without doubt and a fundie would probably accept these passages as given. Only 7 of Paul’s Epistles are authentic. The other 7 are fake. You also seem to have the wrong impression about where the burden lies to prove whether they are authentic or not. > [@](#): > > Even taking the above suspect passages out (\<10% of the NT?), one is left with a hardcore of theology that would define one as Christian and possibly fundamentalist. By definition, a Fundamentalist cannot reject even one word of the Bible as erroneous or suspect. > [@](#): > > Of course one could go further and throw doubt on any other part that did not fit your beliefs, but that then becomes more of a theological issue, rather than a scientific/textural analysis of the origin of the bible. Of course it’s only a theological issue. Personal beliefs play no role in scientific methodology. It’s still a logical problem for fundies, though, to claim that a book is the perfect word of God while they are unable to identify exactly what the authors originally wrote. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/51 "2008-01-14T03:00:19Z")
Diogenes I have read a lot of texts on the subject including the one mentioned. The sentence on John and Mark should be read separate to the one on the (OK Nativity not Christmas) narrative - of course I know where the Nativity stories lie. And by authorship (poor word) I meant not that the author(s) were known, but that the texts apparently survive basically intact from the beginning (e.g. without major variants) Johannine comma" and “Pericope adulterae” were covered when I said that parts of Mark and John may have been added later - but there are still many scholars who will defend the Pericope adulterae. Re Paul epistles - while some are under scrutiny (to say 7 are fake is a remarkably impressive statement as many Biblical scholars wouldnt even come close to that number - and actually Hebrews is not a fake as it is anonymous and hence only ascribed to Paul by tradition) there are many defenders of say Colossians and Second Thessalonians. And even if you are personally convinced (from your indepth knowledge of ancient Greek and years of Biblical textural study) that six are suspect (leaving poor Hebrews out of it) of course a fundamentalist would say that he believes that they were written by Paul and all your textural analysis in the world is unlikely to mean a thing. At its core fundamentalism only requires that in _its original form_, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction. It recognizes that any idiot can copy a manuscript badly or do a poor translation. Many churches also believe that the early copying was divinely inspired - how they handle the manuscript variants I am not sure - I suspect it never enters their conciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/52 "2008-01-14T04:02:24Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] Re Paul epistles - while some are under scrutiny (to say 7 are fake is a remarkably impressive statement as many Biblical scholars wouldnt even come close to that number - and actually Hebrews is not a fake as it is anonymous and hence only ascribed to Paul by tradition) there are many defenders of say Colossians and Second Thessalonians. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that statement of **Diogenes** ’s made me :dubious: a bit, too. It’s not as clear-cut as he made it sound; from what I’ve read, there are several epistles over which there is considerable doubt among scholars whether they are authentic or not. The [Staff Report](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html) claims > [@](#): > > A few small stylistic variations in Colossians and Ephesians make some scholars suspect Paul didn’t write them, but the evidence is sparse and unconvincing. The letters to Timothy and Titus are suspect as well, and some critics feel they were later edits of some of Paul’s more personal correspondence to individual church leaders, or pastors. Hence, they are often referred to as the Pastoral epistles. From what I’ve read, I get the impression that the Pauline authorship is a little more doubtful among scholars than that makes it sound, though not as much as **Diogenes** implies; and calling them “fakes” implies deliberate deception, which is not the only possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/53 "2008-01-14T04:34:41Z")
Only seven of Paul’s Epistles are accepted as undisputable authentic by mainstream scholarship. Trust me on this. The Pastorals, in particular, are, widely regarded as pseudonomous. That’s still pretty good considering that _none_ of the other Apostolic Epistles are genuine. [This page](http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb3.htm) fro Religioustolerance has a pretty good overview of where the scholarship is at. > [@](#): > > Did Paul write all of the epistles attributed to him? > > Most conservative theologians accept the Pauline authorship of all 13 epistles. The main reason is that each epistle states that the author is Paul. Since conservative Christians generally believe in the inerrancy (freedom from error) of the entire Bible, the matter of authorship is settled! Paul wrote all 13. Thus, conservative Christians date all of Paul’s epistles before his death circa 65 CE. I will interrupt here to point out that the word “scholar” is being loosely and diplomatically applied in the above paragraph, and that assuming _a priori_ inerrancy is obviously not scholarship. It is better to say that many theologians have a _religious belief_ in the authenticity of the entire Pauline corpus based on doctrinal assumptions. There is no scholarly methodology or evidence involved and, in fact, the evidence does not support them very well. When you see the phrase “liberal scholars” below, please be advised that this really only means _objective_, non-religiously motivated scholarship based on actual scientific methodology. In truth, the word “liberal” has no application to Biblical scholarship. There is no such thing as “conservative” and “liberal” Biblical scholarship. There is good scholarship and bad schoarship. There is scholarship and there is religious dogma. “conservative and liberal” have nothing to do with anything. “Liberal” and “conservative” in this context are terms of art and do not denote any genuine scholarly divisions. > [@](#): > > Many theologians believe that there is some material embedded in some of Paul’s epistles that is actually much more recent material from other Christian sources - e.g. hymns, creedal formulas, confessions of faith. They seem to date from as late as the middle of the second century CE, some 85 years after Paul’s death. > > A.Q. Morton completed an analysis of these Epistles. 1 He assumed that Galatians was written by Paul, and did a computer study of the style of the remaining letters using that epistle as a reference. His computer found that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philemon matched the precise writing style of the author of Galatians. He assumed that the remaining 8 were written in the name of Paul by persons unknown. > > Most liberal scholars of New Testament theology believe that: > [ul][li]Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians were written by Paul.[/li][li]Colossians may have been written by Paul.[/li][li]2 Thessalonians and Ephesians probably were not.[/li][li]1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were definitely pseudonymous (written by a unknown person, passing the writings off as Paul’s.) They were written 35 to 85 years after Paul’s death. Although such a writer would be considered a forger today, the practice was quite common in the 1st century CE, and was considered acceptable behavior.[/ul][/li] > Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican’s Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as “probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S.” 6 He has expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles: > > In his opinion, of the thirteen epistles which say that they were written by Paul, critical scholars have reached a near consensus that seven are Paul’s: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans. > [ul][li]Agreement that he did not write:[/li][li]1 & 2 Timothy and Titus is about 90%[/li][li]Ephesians is about 80%[/li][li]Colossians is about 60%[/li][li]2 Thessalonians is a slight majority.[/ul][/li] > He notes that the emphasis in Colossians and Ephesians is on ecclesiology – concern with the church itself as the body of Christ. This differs from epistles that are certain to have been written by Paul; the latter writings dealt largely with Christology; they focused on Jesus. ---
**Author:** ![muttrox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a8b319/32.png) [@muttrox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muttrox)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2008, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/54 "2008-01-14T13:41:22Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] book summary: 1. there are lots of NT manuscripts with thousands of minors differences between them - most trivial 2. A few passages in the NT (less than 5% by my count) appear to be late additions and therefore _less_ trustworthy [/QUOTE] That was not my takeaway at all. My summary is: 1. Changes seem to be omnipresent and major, and there is probably not one word that hasn’t been changed multiple times along the way. 2. Some of these changes are accidents of history, some of them were made deliberately for theological reasons. 3. Our most “upstream” versions are still several generations removed from the “original”, which itself is very suspect as a valid description of the events. YMMV, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/55 "2008-01-15T03:00:16Z")
this seems a hijacked thread but hey… Muttrox The current bible translation are made by scholars viewing all the available manuscripts, some fragments dating from probably within 10-40 years of being written (depending on your biblical chronology). By looking at common passages is possible to reconstruct pretty closely to what the original parent text may have looked like. So even if “every word” has changed (which I don’t believe - any cites?), it is still possible by comparing texts to get the original back. Dubious passages such as late additions mentioned above stand out like a sore thumb. Other passages stand out because their languages or word usage are different (e.g in analysing Paul’s letters). However, this is much less certain as peoples styles may change with age, and we know that Paul used writers to put down his words - how much input these scribes had is unsure. My feeling is that scholars are pretty close to what the original texts were. However that is still a million miles from believing that the original texts are 1. A close representation of what was said and done by Jesus 2. Divinely inspired which are surely the only important questions ---
**Author:** ![Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ea666f/32.png) [@Two\_and\_a\_Half\_Inches\_of\_Fun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/56 "2008-01-15T03:21:56Z")
[QUOTE=jsgoddess] Has there ever been a translation of either the OT or NT that was done by someone who wasn’t a part of any religious traditions that use the bible? [/QUOTE] That depends on what you by wasn’t a part of any religious traditions that use the Bible. It really is not that hard to atheist Jews that work in Biblical Scholarship. Robert Alter has translated the Torah, Samuel (1 and 2), and Psalms. He was born and raised a Jew, but came to lose any belief in a personal God. I do not know if this would count to you. > **[The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary: Alter, Robert:...](https://www.amazon.com/Five-Books-Moses-Translation-Commentary/dp/0393019551)** > > The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary \[Alter, Robert\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2008, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861/57 "2008-01-15T03:25:35Z")
[QUOTE=scm1001] this seems a hijacked thread but hey.. Muttrox The current bible translation are made by scholars viewing all the available manuscripts, some fragments dating from probably within 10-40 years of being written (depending on your biblical chronology). [/quote] This is not really true. With the exception of a ingle fragment from GJohn (which has a various, disputed datings ranging from about 125 CE to as late as 195 CE, there are no fragments earlier than the 3rd Century and most manuscripts are from the 4th Century or later. > [@](#): > > By looking at common passages is possible to reconstruct pretty closely to what the original parent text may have looked like. What it “may have” looked like, but no way to know for sure. > [@](#): > > So even if “every word” has changed (which I don’t believe - any cites?), Not a claim made by scholarship. > [@](#): > > it is still possible by comparing texts to get the original back. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. We don’t actually know that. > [@](#): > > Dubious passages such as late additions mentioned above stand out like a sore thumb. Other passages stand out because their languages or word usage are different (e.g in analysing Paul’s letters). However, this is much less certain as peoples styles may change with age, and we know that Paul used writers to put down his words - how much input these scribes had is unsure. A lot of the pseudoepigraphical Gospels can be dated by internal indications within the text, not just by vocabulary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-bible-translations-done-by-atheists/432861.md?page=2)