Sunday, November 14, 2010

1 Tim. 2:12 in the NIV cont.

In the translation forum at Biblegateway, the topic of 1 Tim. 2:12 is on the floor this week. Just to provide a little food for thought, here are Drs. Kostenberger and Carson on the topic of authenteo.

Dr. Kostenberger, in June of 2006 writes,
At the heart of the book were the two chapters devoted to lexical and semantic analysis. In the former, the likelihood was suggested that “exercise authority” (Grk. authentein) carries a neutral or positive connotation, but owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.
Dr. Carson preaches in the fall 2009,
the verb authenteo in most instances has a neutral or positive overtone. But there is a handful of instances where you can at least make a case that it can have a negative overtone.
Fascinating. I will skip the commentary for this evening.

6 comments:

Mike Aubrey said...

You may have noticed that I have simply avoided discussing the new NIV entirely. The last round of "controversy" wore me out.

I commend your efforts, Suzanne. I wish I had the energy...

Suzanne McCarthy said...

Thanks, Mike.

As always, I am disappointed in the boys club that makes people like Carson, Kostenberger and Wallace insiders and acceptable as exegetes, and puts women on the outside as underlings.

Don said...

I tried to post the following, it is awaiting moderator approval.

Don Johnson
For a comp like Burk, anything less than the masculinist translation choices of the ESV are suspect and to be resisted. So he uses words like "sadly" and "mistranslation" in his polemic. And he plots a very short timeline of how authentein has been translated in order to try to show that the NIV 2011 has "gone egal".

He neglects to mention that the KJV translates authentein as "usurp authority" and that the Calvin Translation Society in 1855 translated it as "assume authority" which is more than a century before the evangelical gender debates. Were the Calvinists back then so wrong?

The truth is this passage is a difficult challenge to understand and therefore translate. And an evangelical principle of interpretation is to NOT rely on such unclear (to us) passages, yet comps want to claim that this passage is clear and simply needs to be obeyed. But the only way it is clearly comp is when one goes into the passage with comp assumptions and make comp translation choices. And those translations that might not make comp translation choices in a clear way are to be denigrated.

Has it really come to this? I can see why so many are blowing off Jesus if these are the actions of his representatives on earth.

Message awaits moderator approval

Don said...

I think my post did not get approved.

To post Burk's flame shows where this is heading.

Anonymous said...

It is more about Burke keeping his superiors happy. Remember the 1000 comment egal/comp thread where he deleted all the comments?

They do not like different interpretation viewpoints even on non salvic issues.

E said...

I think I'll check out Willis Barnstone's Restored New Testament. Fie on all these Evangelical Bibles with their misogynist promoters!