Response to Grudem's Open Letter to Egalitarians

A few years back, CBMW posted an Open Letter to Egalitarians by Wayne Grudem. Linda Belleville responded to Grudem and he responded and revised it.

Later, Mike Seaver posted Grudem's letter, and that was when I asked him if he would be interested in a response from me. He was very gracious in interacting with me on this issue. Thank you, Mike.

Here are the two posts I wrote in response to Grudem's Open Letter to Egalitarians.

Part 1
Part 2

Wisdom of Solomon 7:7-9

7 διὰ τοῦτο ηὐξάμην,
καὶ φρόνησις ἐδόθη μοι·
ἐπεκαλεσάμην,
καὶ ἦλθέ μοι πνεῦμα σοφίας.

Therefore I prayed,
And understanding was given to me
and I appealed
and the spirit of wisdom came to me.

8 προέκρινα αὐτὴν σκήπτρων καὶ θρόνων
καὶ πλοῦτον οὐδὲν ἡγησάμην ἐν συγκρίσει αὐτῆς·

I preferred her to sceptres and thrones,
and wealth I considered nothing in comparison to her.

9 οὐδὲ ὡμοίωσα αὐτῇ λίθον ἀτίμητον,
ὅτι ὁ πᾶς χρυσὸς ἐν ὄψει αὐτῆς ψάμμος ὀλίγη,
καὶ ὡς πηλὸς λογισθήσεται ἄργυρος ἐναντίον αὐτῆς.

Neither did I liken a priceless stone to her
because all gold in her sight is a little sand
and as clay is silver counted before her.

There is lots of opportunity to see the patterns of Hebrew poetry in this Greek. There are couplets and chiasmus in almost every line. I have tried to maintain the reversing word order to make it clear what the Greek is doing. In a polished translation I wouldn't do that, but this is just for fun, and to talk about the Greek.

In verse 7 the NETS and KJ translations have said "call upon God" but clearly the name of God is not mentioned in the Greek, so I used the English word "appealed". This is a classic example of a translator inserting a word into the English translation because the meaning is assumed in the original.

The aorist form ηὐξάμην is from εὔχομαι. I find Greek much easier to look up in a lexicon than Hebrew, but occasionally a form like this can take a minute to process.

King James
NETS
Greek
Liddell Scott Lexicon

Bias against the TNIV continues?

Here is an interesting post by Ray McCalla,

So I got my paper catalog from Christian Book Distributors today. My wife and I have purchased many books and resources from CBD over the years, especially during seminary (who could imagine getting an entire TDNT set for $99?). But I am thinking about kicking the CBD habit, because of their ugly bias. Let me explain.

On the front page of today’s paper catalog was a colorful box featuring the King James Kids’ Study Bible. First of all, the mere idea of a KJV kids’ Bible is absurd. No offense to the KJV-only crowd out there, but the KJV belongs in a college English literature classroom and not in the hands of little kids in church. Try explaining the meaning of 1 Samuel 25:22, 34 to a 7 year old (go ahead; click on the link and read those verses; I dare you!). Pandering to the KJV-only sects is spineless on CBD’s part.

On the other extreme, CBD often promotes the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. In their annual Bibles catalog, an entire page is devoted to The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV), the HarperCollins Study Bible (NRSV), the Wesley Study Bible (NRSV), and the New Interpreter’s Study Bible (NRSV)–none of which would qualify as remotely conservative or evangelical. The Oxford is basically a secular, non-religious resource.

But in all this, where is the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible? You remember: the evangelical update of the all-time best-selling New International Version (NIV)? The translation that largely improved its predecessor? The one that was boycotted by a group of reactionary windbags who spoke without reading a word of it? Nope, the TNIV is not in the newest paper catalog. Not in the Bibles catalog. Not in any of their paper catalogs that I’ve ever seen.

So why, pray tell, would CBD promote the very conservative KJV Kids’ Study Bible and at the same the very liberal New Oxford Annotated NRSV Study Bible but completely shun the mainstream, evangelical TNIV translation altogether?

Unless someone out there has a better explanation, I’m left to believe that it’s just ugly bias against the TNIV and capitulation to those who called for its boycott. Maybe it’s time for a different boycott.

---

A question about authority

There have been reading several posts on TC's blog about the practice of authority with reference to different Christian leaders, Mahaney, Driscoll, and Rick Warren.

Here is a provocative paper by Tim Keller on women and ministry. I disagree with Keller's overall position. However, he makes a very interesting observation with respect to authority, which, I think deserves everyone's consideration. I have reproduced a section of Keller's paper, omitting a part of the passage from Lewis for brevity, but please read the full paper here,

2. Democracy is for society while rule-submission is for our spiritual lives.

Christians are for democracy because we believe in sin. Many folk believe in it for the opposite reason. Rousseau believed in democracy because he thought that people were so wise and good that no one is fit to be a slave. Of course, Christians wish for no one to be a slave, but we believe democracy is good because no one is fit to be a master!

Because of sin, people misuse absolute authority. Thus it is clear that monarchy, wise and good kings, would be a form of government that very much fits the Trinitarian pattern. God is a King, not a President, and our spiritual lives are based on monarchy. So why don’t we have Kings? The answer is that we have to abolish monarchy due to sin. We have to treat all people as equal.

C.S. Lewis explains the Christian view of equality:

This introduces a view of equality rather different from that in which we have been trained. I do not think that equality is one of those things (like wisdom or joy) which are good simply in themselves and for their own sakes. I think it is in the same class as medicine, which is good because we are ill, or clothes which are good because we are no longer innocent. I don’t think the old authority of kings, priests, husbands, or fathers, and the old obedience of subjects, laymen, wives, and children was in itself a degrading or evil thing at all. I think it was intrinsically good and beautiful as the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It was rightly taken away because men became bad and abused it. To attempt to restore it now would be the same error as that of the Nudists. Legal and economic equality are absolutely necessary remedies for the Fall. and protection against cruelty.

In summary, the pattern of rule-and-submission is greatly muted in society because of sin. People abuse authority, so politically, all authority must be elected authority—and all individuals must have access to places of authority.

I want to make clear that I do not agree with the position C.S. Lewis and Tim Keller make on rule and submission. However, and this is what matters most, let us imagine for a moment that they are both right, and that rule and submission would be the ideal if there were no sin.

Now let's look at why they advocate democracy as a political form of government. Lewis argues that it is for "protection against cruelty," and Keller says rule must be muted "because of sin." They agree that because of sin, there must be legal and economic equality and democratic rule.

However, Keller, and perhaps Lewis, in some of his writings, deny that the functioning of either the church and marriage require democracy. They either deny that cruelty happens in marriage or they do not feel that the suffering of women is, on balance, as important as upholding male authority.

My question is, if we know that democracy is for protection against cruelty, why will many Christian men advocate for democracy in society but not offer it to women in the home.Note that for Keller, because of abuse, "all individuals must have access to authority" - all individuals, excepting women. Men like Keller, Driscoll, Mahaney and Warren want to live in a democracy themselves, but not offer democracy to their neighbour.

Wisdom of Solomon 7:3-4

In the first couple of verses, there were three words which are near synonyms, θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος and γηγενης, meaning "mortal," "human" and "earthborn." They allude to Adam as one who was made from the ground, adam from adamah. This theme continues in the next few verses as the author emphasizes his common humanity.

3 καὶ ἐγώ δὲ γενόμενος ἔσπασα τὸν κοινὸν ἀέρα
καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ὁμοιοπαθῆ κατέπεσον γῆν,
πρώτην φωνὴν τὴν ὁμοίαν πᾶσιν ἴσα κλαίων·

And when I was born, I breathed in the common air
and on the like-natured earth I fell
my first sound, like everyone else, crying

4 ἐν σπαργάνοις ἀνετράφην καὶ ἐν φροντίσιν·
5 οὐδεὶς γὰρ βασιλεὺς ἑτέραν ἔσχε γενέσεως ἀρχήν,
6 μία δὲ πάντων εἴσοδος εἰς τὸν βίον, ἔξοδός τε ἴση.

In swaddling clothes I was nursed, and with care,
for no king has a different origin of birth
all have one entrance into life and the same exit

These are the same swaddling clothes of Luke 2:7. Whether a king or Christ laid in a manger, the clothes a baby wears are more or less the same - diapers, perhaps. There is the repeated use of the word ἴσος , and although technically it means "equal" that would be too loaded a word for this passage. The author emphasizes that he is just "like" everyone else in his birth. ὁμοιος also means "like" or the "same."

I have tried to keep the word order whenever possible so you can read along with me if you like.

what was going on in Ephesus, and other good stuff

TC, Peter and a few of us have wound up a conversation on 1 Tim. 2 with a comment about what was going on in Ephesus. I am happy to introduce you to Tapestry: A Christian Woman's Collective, hosted by Bible.org, where I found this post on 1 Tim. 2:15.

It contrasts nicely with the tone of the NET Bible note on 1 Tim. 2:15, which is one of the more misogynist passages in Christian literature that I have read. (I am not impressed with how these notes make the woman's role to be one of submission to male leadership, through which a woman works out redemption from the devastating effects of the role reversal in the garden. Childbearing is just one part of the total submission to the male thing.) Anyway, Tapestry is a breath of fresh air.

There have also been a few discussions about Mark Driscoll here and there. I think this article posted to the Egalitarian Christian Alliance forum may help to explain why he is so controversial.

James McGrath posted today on The Insufficiency of Scripture. I can offer a hearty amen to that notion. Here is a post explaining the events in the life of one of the members of the Saddleback church. This statement by the pastor is telling,

“There’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you can leave them,” said Holladay, but sadly, he concluded, there wasn’t. "It’s not like you can escape the pain,” he said, since the “short-term solution” of divorce leaves the “long-term pain” of a failed marriage. Holladay further qualified that domestic abuse meant regular beatings, not simply a spouse who “grabbed you once.”

Yes, I think, in this case, Holladay needs a healthy if discreet belief in the insufficiency of scripture.

Wisdom of Solomon 7:1-2

ΕΙΜΙ μὲν κἀγὼ θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος ἴσος ἅπασι
καὶ γηγενοῦς ἀπόγονος πρωτοπλάστου·
καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ

I also am a mortal human being like everyone else
and a descendant of the first formed earthborn,
and in a mother's belly carved into flesh

2 δεκαμηνιαίῳ χρόνῳ
παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι
ἐκ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς
καὶ ἡδονῆς ὕπνῳ συνελθούσης.

For the time of ten months
fit together in blood
out of the seed of a man
and the pleasure
which comes together with sleep

I thought I would work through a bit of chapter 7 and 8 of the Wisdom of Solomon. I find it especially intriguing since it is one of the texts which both the gospel of John and the Sefer Yetsira appear to make allusions to.

In the first part of this chapter, King Solomon (or the author) is taking pains to describe how he is like all other mortals in the circumstances of his birth. While I have played up the language a little, I think it is worth translating the Greek ἐγλύφην accurately as "carved" since the Hebrew word for "carved" figures prominently in the Sefer Yetsira, The Book of Formation.

There is no point in taking the anatomical terms too literally. The baby is formed in the belly or abdomen of the mother, and from the seed of the father. However, the word σπέρμα can just as easily mean "offspring." This word features as the seed of Eve in Gen. 3:15.


King James
NETS
Greek
Liddel Scott Lexicon

the end of exegesis

Update: Here is a distinct problem. It turns out that wikipedia agrees with Grudem's argument and not Wallace's. (So now I am wearing egg all over my face, because I just used a wikipedia link for another matter recently.) Overall, the wikipedia article on the gender of the holy spirit is lacking some clarity.

************************

In writing my previous post on the spirit, I was surprised to find out that the spirit has only been treated as masculine in Bible translation since the late 19th century. Romans 8:26 is an example of this.

but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. KJV

but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. NIV

But what about John 14 and 16, where the Greek does use a masculine pronoun? Here is the explanation in the Systematic Theology, page 232, which I will divide into two arguments for the holy spirit being a masculine person,

1) there are places where the masculine pronoun "he" (Gk. ekeinos) is applied to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13-14), which one would not expect from Greek grammar, for the word "spirit" (Gk. pneuma) is neuter, not masculine, and would ordinarily be referred to with the neuter pronoun ekeino.

2) Moreover, the name counselor or comforter (Gk. parakletos) is a term commonly used to speak of a person who helps or gives comfort or counsel to another person or persons, but is used of the Holy Spirit in John's gospel. (14"16, 15:26, 16:7).

Dan Wallace deals summarily with Dr. Grudem's first point. (While I don't agree with Dr. Wallace when he is running against scholarly consensus, as he does with Junia, I believe that what he writes on the masculine pronoun for the holy spirit represents current scholarly consensus.)

In Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 332,

The antecedent of ἐκεῖνος, in each case, is παράκλητος, not πνεῦμα. John 14:26 reads, ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα ("the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends in my name, that one will teach you all things"). πνεῦμα not only is appositional to παράκλητος, but the relative pronoun that follows it is neuter! This hardly assists the grammatical argument for the Spirit's personality. ... Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which πνεῦμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.

While Wallace roundly dismisses any argument that the grammatical masculine refers to anything but pure grammatical gender, and has no significance for ontological gender, Grudem's second argument remains, that the parakletos could cause the spirit to be interpreted as a masculine person.

In order to test the validity of this argument, we can compare this passage with the Wisdom of Solomon. In chapter 7 Wisdom is identified closely with the spirit of God. She is also metaphorized as a bride.

In Wisdom 8:12, we read,

I determined then to take her to live with me,
knowing that she would be a good counselor for me,
and a comfort in cares and griefs.

In this passage, wisdom, the bride, is also given the title of counselor - in Greek, σύμβουλος. While this word means a person who acts as a counselor, and has masculine grammatical gender, it does not have the effect of causing us to believe that wisdom is a male person. Wisdom is not usually interpreted as either a person, or male.

By the same token, when the spirit is called the comforter, παράκλητος, in John 14, this does not provide proof that the spirit is either male or a person. Exegesis does not deliver the goods, when it comes to systematic theology, in my opinion.

I am not concerned with influencing people's beliefs about the trinity as I write this. However, I do want to provide some example of how theology derived from grammatical arguments can be very tenuous. If, in fact, the text does not prove that the spirit is a male person in unequivocal terms, then this ought to remain a doctrine on which a variety of beliefs can be tolerated.

Above all, translations of the Bible should not represent the spirit as a male person without a note indicating that this is an interpretive translation of the Greek.

Read Joel's excellent response here.

Biblical battery update

Every once in a while I read the blogs on spousal abuse and fundamentalism. The Bible can certainly be used by either spouse to try and control the other. Sometimes I read about a husband who has left his fundamentalist belief and has been turfed out of the house. I suppose it is just an excuse. In any case, I am not oblivious to the fact that men can get the short end of the marriage stick just as easily as women.

But that is not excuse for a significant part of Christendom to continue to teach priority of the male, and masculinity over femininity, etc. The label is telling enough - "functional subordination." It means being fully aware that women are equal to men, and still making them live as subordinates. I don't know how that is a gentler reality than looking after them for their own good, because, after all, women aren't smart enough to look after themselves.

Here are some updates on articles and posts that have come out on the topic in the last 6 months.

(I deleted one link that was not in very good taste - sorry about that.)

The Purpose Driven Wife

Gracious Submission: Southern Baptist Fundamentalists and Women

A Theoretical Model of Spouse Abuse by Christian Fundamentalists

An open letter to those who have experienced abuse at the hands of religion

Southern Baptists at convention urge women to be submissive to their husbands.

excellent example of hermeneutics!

HT Aaron, this is a great article on hermeneutics. I loved this section,

11. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP”. For example, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.

12. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.

13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.

For John Starke: Denny Burk vs Scot McKnight

Some time ago in my dialogue with John Starke, I mentioned that I was not the only one who had the distinct impression that Augustine did not teach the eternal subordination of Christ. In the comment section to this post, is a conversation between Denny Burk and Scot McKnight, debating that very thing.

This is the same question which I asked John Starke a while back and he says that he might be working on it this summer. John had earlier opened the dialogue with me by making this post, in which he challenges my understanding of Augustine's Latin text.

I am looking forward to John's next post on this topic. In the meantime, I am happy to have found this conversation which I promised to alert him to some time ago.

wisdom and word: some reading recommendations

For someone who wants to read a little Greek and learn something new at the same time, I would suggest taking a passage from a lesser known text than that of the New Testament. I had been studying Greek almost every day for 6 years before I took a class in exegesis of the NT. (I don't personally feel that reading the Biblical languages is the most important thing in life - it's just a thing that I can do, so it works out to be a good hobby for me.)

But here is my recommendation. Look at chapter 7 and 8 in the Wisdom of Solomon. Here are resources which you can find easily.

Greek
King James Bible
NETS
Wikipedia
JewishEncyclopedia
John's Wisdom by Ben Witherington

(You can see that I am not much of an elitist. There is nothing here that is difficult to find.)

I especially found this useful at Jewish Encyclopedia,

Wisdom is described as a cosmic principle dwelling on the throne of glory next to God, and as knowing and designing all things (ix. 1, 4, 10), being identical with the creative Word (ix. 1) and the Holy Spirit (ix. 17).

A great deal of early Christian literature reflects this assumption, that wisdom, the word and the spirit are somehow the same entity. It is important at some point to accept this generalization as being true for a certain kind of literature, without worrying about whether you believe it to be true as a cosmic principle.

The question is this. If we suppose this to be a truism for early Christian writers, what can we learn from these writings about the beliefs of early Christians with regard to the holy spirit?

Now to return to gender for a few reflections, one cannot avoid the fact that wisdom was personified as a woman, a spouse and heavenly bride. She is the one you want with you through the night, the "comforter" when you are sick or in grief, and an "intimate companion." Let's compare this with the image of Christ as the heavenly bridegroom and advocate. He is also our comforter.

At this point, I can only ask what role sexual imagery plays in this literature. I don't have any particular answers. For me, this literature is not about gender at all. It uses the imagery of gender to talk about the desire we all have for the universe to be meaningful.

Septuagint Online

I use only online resources. It's cheaper that way. Recently I had to find a new online resource for the Septuagint including the deuterocanonical books. This site is the best I have seen so far, and I mention it, since it is not easy to google it in English.

Myriobiblos LXX NT

ESV and KJV: Is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?

I would like to recommend to you this informative post on the Aberration Blog - a new biblioblog - for those who are keeping count! It provides some useful insight into Leland Ryken's involvement in Bible translation.

Bryon discusses an article written by Ryken on Bible translation. First, Ryken lists the stated goals of many other recent translations and then discusses them. Bryon continues,

Ryken seems to suggest indirectly that these people are sloppy.


“It is easy to miss what is being denied in these statements…What is being denied is that the translator has any responsibility to translate the exact words of the original (poster's emphasis)

This is consistent with the preface of the ESV,

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

The preface to the KJV, however, which the ESV seeks to emulate, states,

An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way.


Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie.


But, that we should expresse the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveiling; if one where Thinke, never Suppose; if one where Paine, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to savour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?

The King James Bible did not have the goal of using "the same English word for important recurring words in the original" as the ESV does. This is a well known contrast, I am sure, but I hope it provides a good background for other thinking about Bible translation.

Great Stuff

There have been some rather fascinating posts on gender elsewhere that have been brought to my attention. I can assure you that they are on topics which I have never written about and are quite unique - not the same old stuff.

Judy has written some thoughts on Dynamic Equivalence in Translation and Dynamic Equivalence and Inclusive Language.

Bryon posted on The LORD is a Man?

Peter has two posts about the trinity which I wish to pick up on. The Trinity: he, she or they? and The Holy Spirit: he, she, it or they?

The Intrusive Pronoun 2: the spirit itself

I am not claiming to be a theologian. I would simply like to discuss some of the changes from bibles of the Reformation to today, and ask how these changes came about. In the introduction to my last series, I noted that the early English bibles have a neuter pronoun in John 1:3, which would normally be appropriate to refer to an inanimate object, the "word."

In this post, I want to signal the use of the neuter pronoun for the spirit in passages like Romans 8:26. As far as I can see, most Bibles used "the spirit itself" in this verse - Coverdale, Geneva, KJV, Mace, Wesley, Darby, Rotherham, and so on. The Tyndale, Bishop's and NRSV avoid the use of a gendered pronoun altogether. It wasn't until the English Revised Version, 1881, that the spirit was gendered in English.

Of course, in John's gospel, the spirit is often referred to as the "comforter" and, as this is a word with masculine grammatical gender, the pronoun which agrees with "comforter" is always masculine. However, for the early translators, this was no reason to assign the spirit masculine gender in passages where the Greek clearly used the neuter.

It appears that in the 19th century there was a trend to change the pronoun usage for the spirit, away from the neuter, which had agreement with the grammatical gender of the Greek, and assign a masculine personal pronoun to the spirit. The difficulty is that two doctrines are affected by this decision. First, the holy spirit is treated as a distinct person, and second, the spirit is designated as a masculine person.

The question is not whether this is true, but whether the text says the spirit is masculine or not. Or maybe this is a speculative interpretation. I suggest the latter. On the one hand, the comforter is masculine. On the other hand, spirit is a feminine word in Hebrew and Aramaic. It is almost certain that when Jesus spoke of his spirit, he used the feminine gender. More on that later.

I would simply like to bring to your attention the surpisingly late date for the introduction of a masculine pronoun for the spirit in Greek.



The Tyndale, Bishop's and NRSV avoid the use of a gendered pronoun.

ESV says no woman spoke from God

First off, let me offer this comment from Dave Ker to explain why I am moderated in my comments on the BBB.

Please note that comments by Suzanne and John are both moderated. We try to approve comments as quickly as we can but there is sometimes a lag. When comments do not pertain to the post or involve disputes about gender issues or the ESV they are almost never approved.

This was a decision made by the team of contributors at BBB. If you have questions about this feel free to email me directly.

Yesterday, by some quirk, I happened to note that John was not moderated and I assumed that I could post there as well. It turns out I can't. It also turns out that any comment which refers to gender will not be posted or will at least be removed later if requested.

Probably the more serious reason is that I often make comments to the effect that the ESV does not translate the Greek properly with respect to gender. A double whammy as far as being moderated is concerned.

Anyway, when I say that the ESV does not translate accurately with respect to gender, this is a further example of what I mean.

The ESV preface says,

But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Likewise, the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52).

Here are some verses that are so familiar and well used that I have not included the references - perhaps later. As you read these verses think about the consequences for women if these verses are for men only, as the ESV preface clearly says.

And Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.

And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God

In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,and he gave gifts to men.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What, did no woman ever speak from God, not even Mary? Are no spiritual gifts given to women? Is there no justification for women, no life, no light? Is it not good enough to acknowledge the Christ before other women?

Discussion is taking place now on Clayboy, the blog of Doug Chaplin.

Update: Here is more from the ESV preface,

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original;

In 1 Tim. 2:1 the ESV uses the word "people." One has to wonder why this word could not be used elsewhere, where the Greek uses the word anthropos (pl) which clearly means "people."

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,

Carolyn Ann Knight

Carolyn Ann Knight is a preacher with a mission for her people. HT Theophrastus. This article reports,

She is the founder and president of “CAN DO!” Ministries; a progressive, preventive youth advocacy ministry that is dedicated to the cultural, social, intellectual, and spiritual well-being of youth and young adults. For ten years, Dr. Knight served as assistant professor of homiletics at The Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia where she had the primary responsibility for teaching and training students in the art and craft of sermonic design, development and delivery.


A preacher/pastor with scholarly interests, Reverend Knight has served as adjunct professor at LaGuardia Community College and New York Theological Seminary. She served as the permanent part-time professor of preaching at her alma mater, Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Dr. Knight serves on numerous boards and committees; among them are Harlem Congregations for Community Improvement, the Breast Examination Center of Harlem, The Black Leadership Commission on AIDS, and the advisory board of the African American Pulpit of Judson Press.

She grounds her sermons firmly in the gospels and the Hebrew Bible, and addresses social issues with direct talk and action. Here she is quoted as preaching,

We are a great people with a great history. We must stop reciting the failure studies that have been done on our communities. We must never forget that God has always done great things through Africans. We are formed out of adversity. From it we have fashioned our unique perspective on humanity and divinity. They have us straw. We gave them bricks. They gave us seed. We gave them cotton. They gave us sorrow. We wrote songs....

One of the things that really disturbs me is that the blogosphere is sometimes not very friendly to women or to those of other races. For example, why should we have to read comments like this,

It's a good thing that slavery is gone and women have equal rights. But is the average African American young man or young woman better off now than their ancestors under slavery? I would hope so, but I am not so sure. What percentage of young black males are currently rotting in prison? What percentage of black children are borne out of wedlock, with all that often means? At the very least, it has to be said that the abolition of slavery solved some problems, created new ones, and left many others unresolved.

In the time I spent in a church in Florida recently, I appreciated that the congregation was aware that racism was an ongoing issue. The problem is not the abolition of slavery. The problem is that the racism and global economic factors which contributed to slavery are ongoing. Isn't that rather obvious? Why blame the abolition of slavery?

If you are unaware of the fact the vast majority of Christians around the world, who are not, it goes without saying, either white or male, have a *less* nuanced reading strategy vis-a-vis Scripture than does the Chicago Statement, I don't know what to say.

How do we know this is true if we don't read their sermons and discuss them. Just because Carolyn Knight is neither white nor male, does this make her reading strategy "less nuanced?" Is there something fishy going on or is it just me?

Here is one of my earlier posts about Samuel Crowther. The thesis written by his grandson Ade Ajayi had a strong effect on my own MA thesis on First Nations literacy in Canada. I have very emotional memories also of Redfern Louttit, who never did become a bishop, to the disappointment of his people.

Sometimes the bibliosphere is an uncomfortable place. I am happy myself to work in a workplace that has standards about how one talks about those who are neither white nor male.

All in a days work ..

Twice in one day I have received a request to respond to comments on a blog where I am not allowed to post. Here is a second situation. I was asked to comment on the thread of this post on compegal. I wrote,

******************

I am afraid that I cannot read all of the comments here. However, let me address a couple,

Eric wrote,

FWIW, there are no instances of hupotassomai in the Greek New Testament. (There are instances of hupotassô with other middle and/or passive endings, but no instances of hupotassô in the present middle/passive indicative 1st-person singular – i.e., the -mai ending.)

This disregards the fact that Greek scholars typically treat the middle/passive as distinct from the active forms and do, in fact, refer to the verb hupotassomai. In fact, in a recent thread on Mike Aubrey’s blog, Carl Conrad made the point that mid/passive verbs should have their own entry in lexicons.

Eric wrote,

From what I understand, there are very few true middles in the NT; i.e., if a verb has a middle/passive form, it is most likely a passive, though not always.

A cursory glance at Carl Conrad’s article, linked to by Eric, will verify that Carl believes that many verbs which have been translated as passives could be middle in voice. He writes,

While a “head-count” of verb-forms in either morphoparadigm in a particular literary corpus might well show that a majority of the verb-forms bear passive meaning, I personally doubt this very much and I would argue that Greek-speakers (at least in the Hellenistic and Roman Koine periods) felt that either one of these paradigms was inclusive enough to cover the range from intransitive to middle to passive semantics).

In fact, I believe the focus is wrongly put onto the verb hupotassomai in the first place. The issue is whether the other person has authority. In Eph. 5:21, no authority is mentioned, in Luke 10 authority is an important issue. The verb hupotassomai does not give us the relevant information regarding authority.

Note: I'll include the link to Mike's post when I find it.

ESV says Christ is not a mediator between God and women

A stray comment on the BBB brought to mind the fact that the ESV denies women basic access to God in clear and uncertain terms.

Here is my comment in response to a thread on the BBB. First I address some general doctrinal issues in the ESV and then I indicate how it is that the ESV teaches that Christ is the mediator for men only.

*********************

This is from the preface to the ESV,

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium.The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526

Let's have a look at a few key verses,

John 1:3

All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.

Romans 8:16

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ESV

The same sprete certifieth oure sprete yt we are the sonnes of God. Tyndale

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. ESV

No ma hath sene God at eny tyme. The only begotte sonne which is in ye bosome of ye father he hath declared him. Tyndale

Romans 3:25

whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. ESV

whom God hath made a seate of mercy thorow faith in his bloud to shewe ye rightewesnes which before him is of valoure in yt he forgeveth ye synnes yt are passed which God dyd suffre Tyndale

Let me note the introduction of the term "propitiation" instead of "mercy seat" the attributing of gender to Logos and to the Holy Spirit, the lessening of the position of the Son vis-a-vis the Father, from his bosom to his side, and the fact that only "sons" are peacemakers and not all of God's children.

Add to this the well known changes to 1 Cor. 11:10, Romans 16:7, Matt. 5:9, etc. and I doubt whether there is any doctrine which the ESV has not taken into consideration in altering the English of Tyndale and the KJV.

It is no longer possible to preach even the basic salvation of half the human race from the ESV,

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" 1 TIm. 2:5

The ESV preface says,

But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Likewise, the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52).

A dispassionate analysis of this paragraph can only lead to the conclusion that while "man" can include women as part of the human race, the word "men" cannot.

Therefore, the ESV states clearly that Christ Jesus is not a mediator between Christ and women.

***********

I make this comment here instead of on the BBB since the powers that be there have decided to block me from commenting. And frankly, why should a woman have her say when men are so ready to speak on her behalf.