Formal Rebuttal on women in ministry

Addendum; I just received an email response from John Hobbins that he will not link to my rebuttal - even though he said that he would - because he claims that I have not discussed "whether women are to be ordained to the offices of elder/priest and bishop." Thank goodness this was a good story anyway.

Here is my rebuttal to the following statement,

McCarthy has manufactured a strawman. Not only Heiser, but the “many churches today” of which Suzanne speaks do not argue along the lines she proposes. Rather, the argument is that it is better to err on the side of sticking to the practice of the early church on a number of questions of church order (for “Bible-only” churches, on the basis of the NT witness; for tradition-minded churches, based on the normative teaching and practice of the first four or five centuries of the life of the Church). Said churches motivate their position with care and acumen, as anyone familiar with the debate knows.

Do the churches that I have had contact with hold the belief that it is better to err on the side of sticking to the practice of the early church? And do they motivate their positions with care and acumen?

Let me respond. In the last century, Northern British Columbia was the last frontier of the British Empire. It collected an amazing group of women who left their homes in England or eastern Canada and rode horseback summer and winter through mountain passes. The next wave of women trained in jeep maintenance and drove the gravel roads through bush and swamp.

These women were trained as deaconesses, and licensed as lay readers. They taught and preached, they blessed the sacraments, they took funerals, they planned organized series of doctrinal sermons, and planted churches throughout the north of this province. These were Anglican women.

One of these women, Monica Storrs, also called God's Galloping Girl, took on the Canadian government in 1939 to protest that we did not shelter more Jews leaving Germany.

While the country was still a frontier, women were welcome as leaders and temporary incumbents. When the churches were more established and could afford a regular minister, the women were replaced by men. One of the farmers from Storrs' church, left when she was replaced and never went back. It was about 35 years later that women were finally ordained in the Anglican Church of Canada.

But now in Vancouver today, in the church where Jim Packer and David Short teach, women are not welcome as ordained ministers. These men associate with John Piper and Bruce Ware. Somehow, the thought of either of these two men on horseback makes me chuckle. And not only horseback through the mountains, but on your back under a jeep. Anyway, Piper says that men may not diddle in the garage, so we know why women had to do it.

Yup. I am ashamed at the stance of any Canadian Anglican church which does not support the ordination of women. And, no I don't think that the Anglican church which I attended handled this issue with care and acumen. I don't know how much to say on this score. I think the conservative leadership were somewhat deceitful on this issue. They did not articulate their position on the ordination of women in public. It has all come out in a roundabout way.

It is not an issue of maintaining a traditional stance, but it is a matter of an Englishman, an Australian and an American all united in trying to stuff Canadian women back in the box, after they have been out of it since the middle of the 19th century, when intrepid British women with nothing better to do, came to the last frontier and traveled through the north to succour isolated farmers and trappers.

Note: These women may have all been oddities and eccentrics, but their ministrations were much appreciated at the time, and they did not lack initiative and assertiveness, analytical skills or hard headed decision making ability. They give the lie to complementarianism every which way.

Top ten biblioblogs by vote

I decided some time ago to completely ignore the list of top 50 biblioblogs. I was just being a pain about it, and I didn't want to foist my irritation on others ad infinitum. So imagine my astonishment on finding out that somebody, or a collection of somebody's, has voted this blog among the top ten biblioblogs. Shoot, now I am going to have to improve my manners and act like one of the gang. No more crankypants!

In a timely fashion, longtime blogfriend, Dan Brennan has emailed me about this post on cross gender friendship. What a bouquet of roses it is tonight.

Invitation to Mike Heiser and John Hobbins

Mike Heiser and I have been carrying on a friendly email conversation, and I have no intention of having anything more than a lively exchange with him online. John Hobbins expresses his opinion of me and this is my response to him and Mike.

A topic has come up which is of intense intellectual interest to me. In spite of what had been said, I am going to ask them both to extend the following discussion.

For background, John and Mike believe that kephale in 1 Cor. 11:3 expresses a relation of hierarchy. I do not, simply because I believe that the submission of Christ to God was for the purpose of Christ taking on human mortality (Phil 2:8), and I do not think that this sentiment finds a parallel in male/female relations. I do not think that man sends woman to die on the cross in an ethical religion.

I believe that kephale refers to sharing sameness of nature with another entity - that as God shares his divine nature with Christ, so man shares his human nature with woman, and Christ shares his new nature with man.

Another way of expressing relations in the godhead, is that God the son is to God the father, as light is to the sun. But once again, woman does not proceed from man, as the son proceeds from the father - the parallel does not hold.

However, Mike introduces the binitarian view of the godhead in the Old Testament and appears to relate it to 1 Cor. 11:3. Mike writes,

In my dissertation, I argued that there was a godhead in Israelite religion. The Old testament is the place from which the later (orthodox until the second century AD) Jewish doctrine of two powers in heaven springs. The binitarian godhead figure in the Old Testament was clearly subordinate to the invisible Yahweh (the “Father” in NT parlance).

Now, I have no argument with this. But Mike continues,

I don’t expect you to follow this; it is merely to say that I think of the whole godhead issue in a way different from any standard articulatuon. I think of it in Old Testament terms. As a result, I do think the Son was subordinate, because the second power motifs of the Old Testament are deliberately applied to him.

I studied this issue for several years, and interacted with quite a few scholars in trying to relate the binitarian view of the Hebrew godhead to 1 Cor 11:3, but without success. I invite John Hobbins and Mike Heiser to provide me with a bibliography and links to elaborate on this discussion.

One further point - Mike Heiser does not expect me to "follow' this discussion. But the facts are as follows. I read Boyarin's paper several years ago, and since then I have read the relevant passages in Plato and Philo, as well as the book of Wisdom and the Sefer Yetsirah, all in the original languages. I spent considerable time researching this topic, so I am genuinely interested in his response. I read through the Psalms in Hebrew and through the neoplatonic philosophers, all in the interests of relating the logos to later views on the power of the alphabet.

There is no topic which is closer to my heart. I await Mike's response on how 1 Cor. 11:3 can be interpreted in the light of Boyarin's binitarian theology.

Apostles and prophets

Addendum: John Hobbins has linked to this post. He then said something about me. He then said that if I rebutted his post, he would link to my rebuttal. I responded to his post but he now says that this is not a rebuttal so he won't link to it.

Mike Heiser has not attempted to argue that Junia was a man, or that she was not among the apostles. However, he sets up a dichotomy between an apostle, basically an itinerant missionary; and local church leadership. According to Mike, it is the local church leadership which has authority. Women can be apostles in the sense of being itinerant missionaries, but they cannot hold authority in the local church. Mike writes,

the ... definition of apostle would technically exclude a “stationary” (“normative” for today) pastorate — and create or allow for the sort of category, notorious among some egalitarians, of “woman missionary who isn’t actually a pastor.” But maybe that’s actually closer to the NT model than “non-missionary woman church pastor/leader staying put in a local church.” I’m fine with the former since it seems suspiciously like what the NT is describing for Junia. I’m not convinced the latter is consistent with that. I’d have no trouble getting over that hump if the NT didn’t seem to *distinguish* apostles from local church leaders.

So Mike argues that women can preach as long as they don't remain stationary. Women cannot remain in an established church. Women can travel overseas, and they can preach to the unchurched, and they can teach and translate the Bible. But once a congregation is established, a house is purchased,and a salary is in view, women have no right to any of this.

Right across the street from me here in Vancouver, lives a woman just my age, with the same job as me, and a husband and three children. She is conservative, generous, modest and ethical. She will never experience going to church. Her father, a farmer in the north of British Columbia, vowed many years ago, never to return to church after the woman missionary who established the church he attended, was replaced with a salaried male. He wanted none of it.

I am ashamed that in many churches today no progress has been made. There is no biblical justification for saying that a woman minister may not settle down. There is nothing which says that an apostle (other than the twelve) is without authority, and without the right to stay in one place.

If one holds the Bible as a standard and guide, there is no reason to say that a woman can have a gift as long as she is not paid for it, as long as she does not stay in one place. There is no passage which divides the gifts, on the one hand, into non-authoritative apostles, and prophets; and on the other hand, into authoritative pastors and teachers. On the contrary, Eph. 4:11 says,

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,

Junia, may she live forever

On Out of Ur, there is a series on women in ministry. There is also an extensive comment audience. I find for some commenters, the exegetical conclusions of Wallace and Burer are assumed to be accurate. One commenter writes to another,

You had (essentially) asked about the nature of the textual language in Roms 16:7. After much study and interaction with the text our leadership determined (and this will get technical) that the personal dative did not communicate agency but was elative in the sense that while Andronicus and Junia were not apostles in office they were well known amongst those few who were apostles. Their relationship to the apostles might be like Beth Moore's relationship with evangelical pasotrs. While she doesn't hold the office of pastor she is well known because of her teaching. The dative use of "en" is an important qualifying remark

I wonder if this commenter is aware that en plus the dative is normally inclusive and comparative rather than elative.

ὁ δὲ μείζων ὑμῶν Matt. 23:11 (genitive)
the greatest among you

ὁ μείζων ἐν ὑμῖν Luke 22:26 (en plus dative)
the greatest among you

Also, there is no word of perception in this passage. There is no chance that the apostles were only those to whom Andronicus and Junia were well-known, because there is no word which is parallel to "well-known" in the Greek.

Ah well.

Junia resurrected

Its long past bedtime, but this topic has gone sideways, so in order to pull together various strands, I will post a couple of links.

First, Mike Heiser has posted a brief paper that I put together on Junia's name. It is far too brief and only a summary of issues - nothing original. And in the end, I did not even mention that Junia was a common Greek name for a woman, but unknown for a man. Mike has also linked to articles by Belleville, Wolters and Wallace and Burer.

And now Richard Fellows has posted on Wolters' article as well. And Claude Mariottini also responded to Wolters' article here. I am a great admirer of Al Wolters; scholarship, and I note that he did not insist that Junia could not be a female apostle. His articles are basically morphological studies done for the sake of his interest in language.

Pink shirt day

Today is anti-bullying day here. No bullying schoolkids and calling them "gay." We have too many suicides, too many gang assaults. We don't need to bully anyone for being gay, or not, for being fundamentalist, or atheist, or complementarian or egalitarian or whatever.

Tear apart ideas which hurt people, we should do that, but people are off limits. Take statements from published books, and say what you think about that, but don't make personal comments. Treat each other with respect.

Are complementarians biblical?

Mike Heiser and John Hobbins seem to concur on exegesis. But what exegesis do they agree on? John Hobbins says that he agrees with Mike. He writes,

"I concur with many of Mike Heiser’s exegetical observations."

But what are Mike's exegetical conclusions? He seems to suggest that all arguments are a stalemate at best. Mike cites Dan Wallace who argues that Junia was a woman, and was only known to the apostles, and not among them. However, Mike also cites David Jones, who says that Junia was most likely Junias, and was, in fact, among the apostles. Mike aligns himself with the text, but does not reveal what he believes that the text says. I would like to hear how his view accords with the text.

Mike writes,

I want something that clearly derives from the text and which cannot be coherently defeated on the basis of exegesis.

Having said this, he holds his cards tight to his chest and does not reveal his hand. Both John and Mike indicate that they want an understanding of the scripture which cannot be coherently defeated on the basis of exegesis, but they do not reveal what exactly that is. It is hard to defeat a position which is never stated in clear terms.

Regarding what Junia did, I have never actually discussed that. I think she did what women did in those days, a little of this and a little of that. I do think that she and her husband were partners in ministry and were among the 70 or so who knew Jesus and witnessed to him. I believe that their personal knowledge of Jesus provided them with influence and leadership opportunities. I have no interest in discussing what we do not know, whether Junia preached in front of men or not.

I get the feeling that Mike is saying that he wants a biblical answer, but all points lead to a stalemate.

For me, the different passages do not need to agree with each other. Some verses are not clear to me at all. I know what the words mean, but I can venture no further. However, with Mike, I am absolutely certain that Chloe and Nympha, and the elect lady, were leaders in the house churches. I am positive that Rahab was both protector and provider for her family, as was Lydia. I am absolutely convinced that it is appropriate and godly for a woman to provide and protect, as well as nurture, and it is also permissible for her to be cared for by others as they care for her, or in turn, according to who has resources and strength. I am convinced that women may both lead and follow, may be colleagues and partners without the necessary subordination. I have no doubt about these things.

Heiser and Hobbins

Mike Heiser and John Hobbins are engaged in a debate in which Hobbins defends the right of women to be ordained, and Heiser comments,

Actually, I’d describe myself “unconvinced of egalitarian views while being relatively unconcerned over complementarian fears.”But, because of the nature of the debate, I guess that makes me a complementarian, and I’m comfortable with that (since it is the traditional view, it’s also the default view).

Both these posts defy summarizing.

My position is that the different scripture passages do not present one unified view of the role of women in ministry. I do not suggest that these passages are egalitarian, but rather that contemporary categories are irrelevant. What we need to do is analyse whether complementarian arguments are truthful, and if they are not they must be rejected. That's about it for now.

I am waiting to see if Mike Heiser will interact with me.

Mike Heiser and Junia

Mike Heiser has written an extensive post in which he discusses the arguments for women in ministry from several different angles. But I could not get past the first one. Mike brings up the topic of Junia and seems to conclude that the matter is sufficiently dealt with in a few articles. Mike writes,

An article by Burer and Wallace argued against “among the apostles” (some of that is summarized here); a response to that article by the egalitarian scholar Linda Belleville followed.¹

If you cannot obtain these articles, here’s a complemetarian analysis that interacts with Belleville.

C. Despite the text-critical evidence, Al Wolters has shown in considerable detail that the name may be male anyway.

I received the distinct impression that Mike was mentioning David Jones article as a trustworthy reference. I went to this article and it was not long before I read the following,

As mentioned above, the form Iounian is ambiguous and could be either masculine or feminine. The Greek text as found in NA26 has a circumflex accent over the alpha, denoting the accusative masculine singular of the masculine name, Junias.¹² It must be acknowledged, however, that the only thing distinguishing the NA26 form from the feminine form Junia is the accent itself, which was not part of the original text but something added centuries later.

It is possible that Mike Heiser is not aware that NA26 is not accurate in its reflection of the manuscript evidence for Junia. There are NO manuscripts which contain the circumflex. None, nada, zip. This is an urban legend which crept into the NA26 for some reason or other.

I hope that Mike Heiser is interested in discussing these details.

I would add that Wallace and Burer's article contains a significant error in its "closest parallel." There has been no academic defense since this has been demonstrated. Their thesis stands undefended at this time. I would invite Mike to engage with me on this topic.

I have commented on his blog but he has comment moderation and I am not sure whether he is willing to interact with me. I hope he will.

Mike also refers to an article written by Al Wolters. Before he had published his article, I had discussed Wolters' idea with Bruce Watlke. This is what Wolters then wrote to me,

I recently came across your comments on some of my work, and thought you might be interested in some clarifications. But first, allow me to express my appreciation for the fact that you apparently read my book on “The Song of the Valiant Woman”–and apparently liked it. It is delightful to discover that there are other people in the world who can get excited about whether an obscure Hebrew word really means “distaff” or not.

Now for the clarifications. I’m afraid that things got a little garbled in your understanding (via Prof. Waltke) of what my article on “Junia/s” was about. My argument is basically that the attested Hebrew name yHny (I’m using capital H to designate the eighth letter of the Hebrew alphabet) would have been pronounced yeHunni, and that this name would have been Hellenized as as Iounias (gen. Iouniou, acc. Iounian). It is therefore possible that Iounian in Rom 16:7 is a Greek version of that Hebrew name. I do not argue that it is the only possibility, or even the most plausible one. It is certainly true that the Latin feminine name Junia is much more common. My article on this is forthcoming in JBL.

My response to him included the following comment by way of explanation,

I had not heard of the name yHny and Dr. Waltke did not explain that part. Considering the overwhelming popularity of the names Junia and Johanna, it seems best to me to explain Junia as an evangelist or saint as any church which uses the KJV, or the Greek orthodox church, does.

And he answered,

I’m perfectly happy to have Junia be an apostle. In fact, I once wrote a popular piece defending that interpretation.

Although I am totally in love with the kind of philological work that Wolters engaged in and we emailed on the matter of the Pagnini Bible as well, so yes, I had so many interests in common with Al Wolters, but ultimately, I don't think that he actually demonstrated that there was any more than a remote technical possibility that Junia could have been the name of a man. I also could be a boy named Sue. I think Wolters engaged in a very interesting discussion of transliteration, just as Bauckham also did. Bauckham suggested that Junia was Johanna, and Wolters suggested that Junia was a Hebrew/Aramaic name yeHunni.

Both suggestions are highly speculative and interesting but have no relation to facts.

CBMW has not heard of the King James Version

So claims Marvin Olasky. I wasn't going to post on this topic again. But my wandering eye could not help but notice this complete nonsense. Really, at this point, I don't care any more to discuss what 1 Tim. 2:12 means. But I can't help but chuckle over all those who claim to be "biblical" and "traditional" and have no idea what a traditional Bible translation might contain. Marvin Olasky writes about the NIV 2011,

"Person," "ancestor," and "they" are three of the gap-fillers, but this translation sometimes maintains the role of the individual (Psalm 1 begins "Blessed is the one," not "Blessed are they") and sometimes doesn't (Psalm 146:5). The most-criticized retranslated verse is 1 Timothy 2:12. The CMBW notes that virtually every translation, whether traditional or modern, has Paul writing that in church a woman is not to "have" or "exercise authority" over a man—but the new NIV has "assume authority." Critics argue that readers may conclude women can be pastors as long as they don't engage in a power grab.

I think that "virtually" must signal "complete nonsense coming next." How could Olasky state that CBMW does not know what is in the King James Version, or the Calvin Translation, or the Vulgate, or Luther's Bible? How come they don't know, and don't care?

Because they have chosen to be ignorant of these things. Or because they actually think that no one else knows, and they can slip this one by. What is it - deceit or ignorance? They are deluded, I do believe, and they chose to bind women to their own personal delusion.

Am I being too kind?

The comments resonate for me. I do feel that the teaching that women submit to the decisions of their husband, whether at the end of the day, or in the moment, is categorically wrong. I have no doubt about that.

But the question is how this kind of teaching gains so much power. Why do we give this teaching power, and how do we strip it of power? Pain and anger are completely understandable responses. This is my response, as I have often made clear. But does this strip the teaching of the submission of women of power? Clearly, the answer to that is no.

I have to admit that my journey out of the darkness of submission into health and normalcy has been a long one. It started about 20 years ago. I hope that is not too discouraging - it's a long time.

I hope that by sharing my reverse testimony, that we will be able to share what is powerful and good about becoming adults, about not giving someone else's teaching control over our minds, not according power to an ideology or a doctrine, whether derived from the Bible or from somewhere else.

By reverse testimony, I don't mean that by leaving biblical womanhood and experiencing this as health and wellness, that I am providing evidence that biblical womanhood is wrong. I mean rather to demonstrate that a personal testimony is not evidence which proves an ideology. Biblical womanhood, or feminism or some other ideal may well improve the life of an individual. But this does not justify urging an ideology onto others. This is about freedom from such simplistic thinking altogether.

Those who escape abuse from non-Christian spouses and family members, may embrace the doctrine of biblical patriarchy. Those of us who have suffered from abuse within patriarchy are repelled by it. The testimony of the joiners of the teachings of patriarchy and the testimony of the leavers, demonstrates that the teaching itself has no value. Patriarchy has no divine power for good. We can discount that completely.

But this does not mean that the positive experiences of those who feel happier after accepting the teachings of patriarchy are all wrong. Biblical patriarchy may have enabled them to leave something that was worse. We don't know. But we do know, because of the experiences of those who leave, that it is wrong to teach patriarchy as a good. We know this for sure. So, I am interested in tearing down the power of a doctrine to hurt and do evil. I don't have an ideology to put in its place.

We do know that we are all of us called to be adult, to be responsible for our own actions, to do no harm. We must care for and nurture maturity in those who are dependent on us, and we must do no harm to others. This is what we are called to. This should be taken away from nobody.

The trial of John Piper

Without going into any more detail, we can agree that John Piper is aware of, and has publicly refered to three types of abuse which are more frequently experienced by women than by men. These consist of physical assault, alternative sexual practice under coercion, and restriction of movement.

In this video, which has been transcribed here, we can hear of his awareness of these issues. In this article Piper refers to the control and coercion which a woman might also experience. He is not unaware of these challenges to a woman's well-being.

I recognize that Piper has written much which makes it appear that he is sensitive to and concerned about the well-being of women. He does not condone any of the behaviours which I mention. He is horrified by them. I am also aware that men experience abuse, in ways which are both similar to, and different from that which is experienced by women.

So the issue is not about who abuses, and who experiences abuse. We can, everyone one of us, be on either side and on both sides of this equation. However, it is wrong to counsel the weaker, the one who is in danger, to submit in the long term to the aggressor. While one may submit in the short term, for safety sake, submission will encourage a continuation of the aggression. It is wrong to submit to, or be counseled to submit to any aggression and restriction of basic human rights.

We all agree that Piper knows that these restrictions against the human rights of women happen in Christian marriages. So now, we must observe with accuracy how he responds. I would like Piper to speak for himself. Here is a significant sermon, in which Piper addresses 6,000 women at one time.

Some of you God is going to touch so profoundly in these days. You won't want to go home, because he's letting you down so badly. So let's pray for each other. I would like to be speaking to 6,000 men. I would, and I would get in their face big time (a lot harder than I'm getting in your face). I would tell them, "You're the main problem in most of these situations. Your women would rise to this if you would do it like Jesus." ......

I'll say it again. Submission is the divine calling of a wife to honor and affirm her husband's leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts.

Now the point here is not to go into detail about how this gets worked out in every marriage, and every marriage looks a little different. The point is that these two, headship and submission, correspond to true manhood and true womanhood in marriage. They're not the same, and these differences are absolutely essential, by God's design, so that marriage will display more fully the glory of the sacrificial love of Christ for His bride and the beauty of the lavished reverence and admiration of the bride for her Husband.

I know that leaves 200-300 questions unanswered. What about unbelieving husbands? What about believing husbands who don't do this leadership, protection, provision? What about wives who resist leadership, don't like the idea of being led, think it's all 50/50 always? What about wives who do receive it but never express any appreciation for it?

There are hundreds of questions that we could take up now, and I apologize that I won't. But here's my comfort: If you could embrace this true, that as married women (and I'm turning to singles in one minute), if you as married women could embrace this magnificent truth, that your true womanhood ultimately means that your distinctive role in marriage is meant to magnify the glory of God's grace supremely expressed in the covenant-keeping love between Christ and His church, you would have a compass with which to navigate hundreds of questions. You have a lifetime to ferret them out.

Please read the rest of the sermon. Read John Piper's words. I am not trying to demonize him. But I do want to say that John Piper has nothing at all to offer women but a lifetime of misery. He has nothing to contribute to marriage counseling. It is negligent not to instruct anyone who is aware of violence to go to the police.

While it is true that many women do not want to go the police, a witness of violence is obligated to counsel this as a prefered response. Piper did not do that. He does not recognize the basic human rights that we all have under the law in our society, not to be violated. Paul himself appeals to Roman law, and insists on his right not to be assaulted. What business does Piper have diminishing the rights of women? Do the rights of women have less value than the rights of men? Than the rights of Paul? No, they don't. Piper should have preached Acts 22:25 to women.

But the important thing is not to belittle John Piper, or to demonize him. We must simply ask if what he says has value. Is his word good, and does it provide benefit to his hearers? If not, we have to move on. We simply need to testify to the positive value in our lives of moving past this kind of thinking and leaving it to the side where it belongs. We have to show other women that a true woman is not interested in the word of John Piper. Whatever intentions he has, whatever motives he has, these are irrelevant. His word is not healthy and life-giving.

Catherine Clark Kroeger

I have just read on Denny's blog that Catherine Kroeger has died. I feel shivers of sorrow and gratitude. She was one of the first women authors that I read who advocated for true equality for Christian women. Sometimes, I get taken back in my mind to that other place - before. I am so grateful to this woman for all she has written.

I confess ...

... that I won't be able to read all the comments. I'm chair of a district tech conference happening tomorrow. Thank goodness I don't have to wear a "submissive helper to all the males in the room" face when I am in that role. Thank goodness my tech support guy doesn't find working with me to be demeaning even though I don't defer to him. I make the technology support personnel defer to me, because I write the educational goals, I teach students and train other teachers. It works better that way.

Thank goodness it would be innapropriate to use the special Piper and Grudem tone of voice which expresses my awareness that "I am only a woman while he is the man" tone of voice. Cracks me up to think of it.

But .... how come my best black pants are at the cleaners? How come, even though a workshop filled up two weeks ago online, you can still register by word of mouth, if you are a friend of my friend? How come so many people don't know how to do online registration? How come it is freezing rain outside? How come our bandwidth is insufficient to download the software, so we have to download at home onto a flash drive and install at school?

I will try to post again next week something more focused. I am already finding the recent comment zones hard to load.

Christians and sexuality

The news is covering the trends among evangelical Christians more and more these days. And some are not impressed with what is being written by Christians about sexuality. From a recent article,

But behind it all, behind the outpouring of books celebrating the God-given gift of sex and offering tips on how to make it even better, there is a more pedestrian agenda: to prop up the institution of marriage by keeping husbands from straying. And here it is the wives who must do the heavy lifting. If only they would put out more, if only they would do a better job with their personal hygiene, their husbands would want to stay home at night and would be happier, more motivated breadwinners.

Can you save marriage by tarting it up? That is a question that conservative evangelicals must answer for themselves. But the historian in me has grave doubts. First food, then alcohol, now sex: America's evangelicals have compromised on so many core principles that one wonders which will be the next to go.

Americans dislike British Royalty ...

And egalitarian women dislike men.

Nuff said.

Response to a complementarian

Derek writes,

I'm referring to the way that dialogue is poisoned when you and some others on this blog/community imply or suggest that comps are subjugators or that they hate women or that, to use your terminology, that the demonize women.

I don't often mention "complementarians" but rather speak of "those who believe that men have authority over their wives." If a complementarian believes this, or teaches it, or practices this, then that is who I am referring to.

Those who demonize and subordinate women, those who put men in authority over women, are men like Bruce Ware, who writes,

the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.

Paul understands Eve's role as helper to require that woman ought to be under the rightful authority of man

Most complementarians understand the curse of the woman in 3:16 to mean that sin would bring about in Eve a wrongful desire to rule over her husband (contrary to God's created design), and that in response, Adam would have to assert his rule over her.

the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male

the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways.

Derek continues,

We should be able to share where we disagree without assuming the worst of each other's motives.

I am not sure where I have spoken of motives. Please let me know if I have ever commented on Bruce Ware's motives, or those of any other individual.

Derek continues,

If there are abuses that occur, then fine- point those abuses out, but don't libel the color of other people's skin on the basis of some bad apples, which can certainly be found in every bunch.

The bad apples that I am pointing out are the writings of major leaders in the conservative evangelical community. These men and women enjoy wide approval among other Christians.

I do find that many complementarians identify themselves with what I am writing. But the main thrust of my writing is against the functional subordination of women, it is not against those who label themselves with any particular word, "complementarian" or otherwise.

I thought ...

I thought at first, when I started writing about coming out of biblical womanhood, out of what was for me a sort of non-living, I thought that I could write through the pain. I thought that as that life became more distant, it would also become less painful. But the truth is rather the opposite.

As I leave behind, in my real life, both the demonization and subordination of femininity, I actually have times when I forget what it means to be hated for being female. Then, when I read again about biblical womanhood, it is like a flood of pain washing over me. It feels more painful all the time. The more I realize what it means to be alive as a normal person, living a normal life, the more I realize how terrible and dehumanizing it was to be subordinated by being told that this is what God wants for you.

I thought there would come a time when I could think about these things dispassionately. But the truth is that I realize more and more every day how much was taken from me as a woman, how much I was deprived of. Now it just hurts more when I expose myself in the slightest way to these beliefs, rather than less.

The Vamva Greek Bible

It is not very often that I find out about a completely new online Bible - at least, a Bible that is new to me. In May 2007, I wrote about the Vamva version of the Bible on the Better Bibles Blog.

This 19th century version of the Bible by Neofitos Vamvas, a distinguished linguist and noted Bible scholar, was published in 1850 with the collaboration of British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS). It was not accepted by the Greek Orthodox Church which continues to use a version of the original Greek New Testament and the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible.

When I wrote about this Bible three years ago, I had only the New Testament, a copy which I had owned since my university days. However, now a commenter on my BBB post has let me know of an online version to the entire Bible in the Vamva version. He wrote,

Dear Suzanne, readers,

Good posting. I am surprised too about how little is known about the exceptional Vamva translation outside Greece. Let me encourage you and say that by now the Vamva translation has taken root and it’s the standard translation used in prevalent Greek Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations including the no 2 most widespread Christian denomination (considering the state church as the no 1.) While we have found in it some translation issues when compared to the original Greek NT manuscripts, it is in our view free of denominational biases (how can you beat that in a translation); also by far, richer linguistically, more accurate and reliable than the Septuagint (treading carefully here) and especially the later Greek translations which carry denominational biases.

Here are the opening verses of Genesis in the Septuagint and the Vamva Version.

1. Εν αρχή εποίησεν ο Θεός τον ουρανόν και την γην.

2. Η δε γη ήτο άμορφος και έρημος· και σκότος επί του προσώπου της αβύσσου. Και πνεύμα Θεού εφέρετο επί της επιφανείας των υδάτων.

3. Και είπεν ο Θεός, Γενηθήτω φώς· και έγεινε φώς·

4. και είδεν ο Θεός το φως ότι ήτο καλόν· και διεχώρισεν ο Θεός το φως από του σκότους·

5. και εκάλεσεν ο Θεός το φως, Ημέραν· το δε σκότος εκάλεσε, Νύκτα. Και έγεινεν εσπέρα και έγεινε πρωΐ, ημέρα πρώτη.

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.
2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος.
3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· γενηθήτω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.
4 καὶ εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς, ὅτι καλόν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς, ὅτι καλόν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους.
5 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσε νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ, ἡμέρα μία.

¹In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

²And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Barney's Version

I read Barney's Version by Mordecai Richler, this summer, and anxiously awaited the movie. Saw it last week.

First, the really dumb stuff. Somehow or other, the time frame has been shifted 15 years forward, and Paris becomes Rome, and Toronto becomes New York. This means that scenes that took place in the 50's in France, now have to be set in 1970 in Rome. I hope you get the picture. I found it jarring.

The big fuss about the wife going back to work, the vast quanities of alchohol being consumed; all of these things make much more sense in the 50's and 60's and seem downright out of place in the 70's and 80's.

Now for what is right and true about this movie. Montreal. The lake. The passage of time, from young man to his demise, is completely believable. The story will make you cry. It is true that some sense of voice is lost. In the novel, Barney talks constantly in his head to "Miriam, my love" - his great love. The movie does give you a good impression of his devotion, but the voice is lost.

The wedding scene is far better in the movie than in the novel. How could it not be? A novel does not do justice to music, dance and dress. The wedding scene is cut raw from Richler's life. He did meet Florence, his second wife, at his marriage to his first wife. They were married six years later. The great love for his children, the adoration for his wife, the mother of those children - this is true.

However, unlike in the movie, Mordecai and Florence Richler, parents of five children, were married for 41 years, until Richler's death in 2001. Their marriage was an icon of enduring love and inspiration to others. The irascible and irreverent Richler did not have the marriage of Barney Panofsky.

Barbara Gowdy tells an anecdote of how she saw Richler at a writer's convention, flirting outrageously with a beautiful woman. She found out later that it was his wife of many years. That is how they were.

So, if you see the movie, remember that it is made from a novel, not from a biography. I have enjoyed the novel, the movie, a biography of Richler, and now, this evening, I watched Charles Foran, his biographer, being interviewed.

Lies Women Believe cont.

To the anonymous commenter who wondered if I had read anything else in her book, I dedicate this post.

As I cited yesterday, Nancy Leigh DeMoss wrote,

I have often wondered why food is such an issue with so many women. I'm convinced it has something to do with Genesis 3. After all, what was the very first sin? It was the sin of overeating.

She also wrote on page 137, in reference to Gen. 3,

The protection the woman had been granted under her spiritual "head" was removed, and the independent spirit she had exerted toward God now displayed itself toward her husband, leaving her vulnerable to greater deception, sin and attack.

However, the statistics show that married women actually weigh more on average than single women. Being married, and being in a Christian marriage, and being in a conservative Christian marriage, may tend to make a person weigh more, rather than less.

I am not altogether convinced that all of the above is true, but statistics do suggest it. However, I am going to propose that a hypothesis could be made that male headship does not protect a woman from the sin of Eve, that of overeating.

In fact, I speak of this matter from the lofty heights of being in the lowest weight class of them all. As a single Canadian female, I am about half as likely to be overweight or obese, as a male American member of the clergy. It is true, alas, that, as some say, I am trying to punch above my weight class.

Now that I have written this, I am going to rededicate it to my very own sister, to whom it was suggested that she read this book.

Lies Women Believe

Here is a big one. Some women believe that women are more overweight than men. Some women feel that being overweight is a feminine problem. And some women are attributing this to the Bible.

Does the Bible really tell us that the sin of Eve is overeating? Nancy Leigh DeMoss, in Lies Women Believe, And the Truth that sets them Free, page 56, writes,

I have often wondered why food is such an issue with so many women. I'm convinced it has something to do with Genesis 3. After all, what was the very first sin? It was the sin of overeating.

Got that? It happens that this book is being used across North America in women's Bible studies to bring the truth to women.

In fact, it is a lie that women overeat more than men. It is a lie that being a Christian will make you less likely to be overweight than being a non-Christian. It is a lie that not being under male headship will make you more likely to be overweight. Can we put this one to rest?

Here are a few trends that people with more time than I have are welcome to google. Although there are more women than men among the extremely obese, on average, more men than women are overweight and obese. Men with a conservative Christian affiliation are more overweight than other men, and male clergy are more overweight again.

(Who ever thought up weight as a measure of spirituality anyway, and then aimed that gun at women? Probably some self-congratulatory klatch of super skinny and over spiritual men and women.)

When not to submit

Shirley has a good post outlining when a woman should not submit according to a complementarian author. This is excellent. I have been thinking that if a wife is required to submit "in all things" this could easily cross the line of legality.

Included in the list of when not to submit is ethical and moral issues, biblical priniciples, caring for children and submission to abuse of any kind. So far, so good.

I would add to this that a woman must not submit in any situation in which she operates as a legal and civil entity. This is wrong. Now that women do have the right to own property, to borrow funds, to earn money, to sign legal documents and to vote, it is obvious that if a wife vows to obey her husband in any area in which she acts as a legal entity, this negates her legal status. She would simply be operating as an extension of her husband, and this doubles his legal efficacy, his vote, his signing power. Perhaps his wife does have a job. If she has to co-sign a document because her husband tells her to, she puts herself in debt because her husband has required it of her. Maybe she wanted to save for retirement.

I am suggesting that it should be made illegal for anyone to influence a woman to vow to obey her husband. I am saying that women should be taught that obeying her husband is an irresponsible act and does not accord with her adult status as a citizen of a free country, as a parent of dependent children and as a child of dependent parents. It does not accord with the reality that more than half of women will have to support themselves in retirement.

I am simply appalled that anyone would think that a woman should be influenced or taught to obey her husband.

Not even all devils ...

would wrest this passage from me.

This is what Calvin wrote about Philippians 2:6,

6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

6. Qui quum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus esset, Deo aequalem se esse:

In the Latin Vulgate, the Greek word harpagmos, ἁρπαγμός, had been translated as rapina, meaning "rape, pillage, plunder and robbery." This is how Luther and Calvin also understood this word harpagmos. Calvin wrote,

Thought it not robbery. There would have been no wrong done though he had shewn himself to be equal with God. For when he says, he would not have thought, it is as though he had said, “He knew, indeed, that this was lawful and right for him,” that we might know that his abasement was voluntary, not of necessity. ....

For where can there be equality with God without robbery, excepting only where there is the essence of God; for God always remains the same, who cries by Isaiah, I live; I will not give my glory to another. (Isa 48:11.) Form means figure or appearance, as they commonly speak. This, too, I readily grant; but will there be found, apart from God, such a form, so as to be neither false nor forged?

As, then, God is known by means of his excellences, and his works are evidences of his eternal Godhead, (Ro 1:20,) so Christ’s divine essence is rightly proved from Christ’s majesty, which he possessed equally with the Father before he humbled himself. As to myself, at least, not even all devils would wrest this passage from me — inasmuch as there is in God a most solid argument, from his glory to his essence, which are two things that are inseparable.

However, at least since the RSV, harpagmos has been translated as "a thing to be grasped." This phrase occurs in the NIV 1984, NASB and ESV. The NRSV, on the other hand, has translated harpagmos as "something to be exploited" and the NIV 2011 as "something to be used to his own advantage."

The significant thing here is that some theologians writing for the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have interpreted "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" as an indication that Christ is in some way not equal to God. Here Denny Burk writes for the CBMW,

First, this verse affirms that Christ has ontological equality with the Father with respect to his deity. That's what "existing in the form of God" means. Second, the verse affirms that in his pre-incarnate state Christ did not try to obtain (or "grasp for") another kind of equality which he did not have in his pre-existent state.

What kind of "equality" did he refuse to grasp for? He refused to "grasp for" a functional equality with the Father that would have usurped the Father's role as Father. In contrast to grasping for that kind of equality, the Son "emptied himself" and took the form of a servant (v. 7). In other words, in eternity past Christ determined not to usurp the Father's role but decided to embrace his own role in the incarnation. Thus what we have in this text is both an affirmation of Christ's ontological equality with the Father (vis a vis his deity) and a passing reference to his functional distinction from the same.

While Burk says that Christ did not have a certain kind of equality with God, Calvin writes that this means that Christ can be equal to God without robbery. For Burk, Christ is ontologically equal but functionally distinct, or "not equal"; and for Calvin, Christ's essence and his majesty, (in my view this means his authority and power) are inseparable, and Christ is equal to God in both.

If you wish to undestand Calvin and Luther, if you wish to feel close to the original Greek, then you could do a great deal worse than read the King James Versions,

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

You might also want to dip into the translation of the Brethren scholar, J. N. Darby,

who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine to be on an equality with God;

Dear Reader,

If you want both heritage and transformation, if you value traditional Christianity, if you are curious about the religion of the Reformers, of the orthodox church through the ages, read the King James Version. I am delighted to see, however, that in many places, the NIV 2011 has returned to the original meaning of the King James Version, closer to a literal understanding of the Greek, than the NIV1984.

I write with feeling about this passage, as it was one of two passages which my grandfather had the habit of reading out loud in the meeting. He would stand and read Phil. 2, wavering back and forth as he stood, Bible open, reciting this chapter from memory. We all value the Bible we had from our childhood, the Bible in our own heart language.

For more on this passage, read the post at Biblegateway by Craig Blomberg.

Translating what is there or what you think is there

ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. Luke 3:9

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

εἶπεν δὲ πρὸς τὸν ἀμπελουργόν, Ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ' οὗ ἔρχομαι ζητῶν καρπὸν ἐν τῇ συκῇ ταύτῃ καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκω. ἔκκοψον [οὖν] αὐτήν: ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ;

So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’ Luke 13:7

We may think that in the first passage, the text refers to a fig tree. We have some evidence that it could possibly refer to a fig tree. So why has the Greek word dendros in Luke 3 never been translated as "fig tree?" Because is doesn't actually say "fig tree" in Greek.

Now think of the word anthropos. This is a word of common gender which means "person" or "human being." Sometimes it refers to a single woman or in the plural to a group of women. But often it refers to men. So should the text translate this word as "people" or as "men?" Which word better represents what the Greek says?

Denny Burk is the new spokesperson for CBMW and he says that it should be translated "men." So does Dr. Packer. But what translation principles is opinion this based on?

Does anthropois mean "men" in 2 Tim. 2:?

Denny Burk posted on this topic, and I answered with a comment there. However, there is no guarantee that Denny will allow my comment. He allows about 50% of my comments.

________________________________________________

There are several arguments here which need to be considered. One concern is establishing the semantic content of the word, and then laterlooking at the possible referent. After that comes the decision on how to translate.

That is, when the word dendros "tree" is used in the text, it may very well refer to a fig tree. However, “fig tree” is not the appropriate way to translate dendros.

Therefore, we can establish that even if the referent of the word was “men as in males” that still does not establish with certainty how we should translate this word.

First, anthropos is a common gender word, not a masculine word, and can refer to a single referent who is a woman when one is saying that she is human. This is common in classical Greek.

Second, in Numbers 31, 30.000 girls who had never known a man, are called anthropos.

So we know that there is no semantic content in this word which makes it male. Only the grammatical form of the adjective makes it grammatically masculine. This is usual for any plural referring to a group of mixed gender.

In several of the Bibles which you mention, the NASB, KJV, NKJV and so on, the word anthropos is routinely translated as “men” with the meaning of people. At no time in the past was it possible to tell in an English translation that the referents were male. Salvation was for all “men” and nobody said that women could not go to heaven.

In fact, based on the NIV 1984, and the NASB, a whole literature has been established in campus and Inter Varsity discipleship in which anthropois was understood as generic. This is the traditional use and understanding of the word preceding the current gender debate.

With the ESV, this changed. The preface of the ESV includes this statement.

“But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. … In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture.”

This is not in fact, true, because anthropos does not have a male meaning component, even if the referents are male.

Which is it, and which helps transparency to the original?

If, in fact, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are both written by Paul, then we know that know that aner typically means male, as we can see in 1 Tim 2 and anthropos regularly refers to human beings.

It is not possible to see this contrast in the ESV or HCSB. It is only in the TNIV and NIV 2011 and the NRSV, that we can see the two Greek words that are used.

I believe that since we do not know the referent of this word, we ought to translate male meaning components only when they are actually there in the original Greek. There is no male meaning component in anthropos, as we know it can refer to a single woman or women. i do not believe that inserting male meaning that was not there in the Greek, into English translations is helping anybody.

What Osiek said

Here is a quote from an interview with Carolyn Osiek, which was cited the other day on the long thread on the Better Bibles Blog,

[Christianity] was part of a wider movement that was moving with glacial speed toward a more humane patriarchy, in Christian terms, perhaps, something like Troeltsch’s “love patriarchy.”

I originally received the impression from this quote that Osiek might be speaking approvingly of "love patriarchy." However, the larger context suggests she is not. I think that readers here might be interested in knowing what the next words were in Osiek's original discussion. This is the quote in context,

Did Christianity move away from patriarchy? I think it was part of a wider movement that was moving with glacial speed toward a more humane patriarchy, in Christian terms, perhaps, something like Troeltsch's "love patriarchy." Patriarchy is no less patriarchy if enacted with love, it seems to me.

Ultimately though, our biblical hermeneutic here is not historical but theological. We want to know what it all means for us today. Where I come from, we do not have to prove that what we are doing is the same as what they did, only that it is in some kind of organic continuity. To this, I can readily assent: that we are doing today what they would do if they were here. Equal regard, let's do it.

I get the impression that Osiek is not condoning patriarchy in her discussion of it. She is suggesting that if the biblical authors were here today they would support relationships of equal regard.

Does the ESV deny heterosexuality?

Updated at bottom.

Okay, I admit that this is an attention getter. But listen for a minute. If anthropos means "men, as in males" then perhaps we have a problem. Here is a selection from one of the books that I grew up on, The Iliad,

ἐπὶ δὲ μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμοῦμαι
μή ποτε τῆς εὐνῆς ἐπιβήμεναι ἠδὲ μιγῆναι,
ἣ θέμις ἀνθρώπων πέλει ἀνδρῶν ἠδὲ γυναικῶν.

and I will furthermore swear a great oath
that never went I up into her bed neither had dalliance with her
as is the appointed way of mankind, even of men and women.

If ἄνθρωποι actually has the semantic meaning of "men" as in "males" then what was it that Agamemnon did not do. As the story stands, Agamemnon had captured Briseis, a young princess, but did not sleep with her. Instead he gave her as a virgin to Achilles, the hero of the Iliad. This is the story that I read as a young teenager - you know - I always identified with Briseis, her and Michal - being a girl was crap, actually. But I thought that Agamemnon was saying that he had not done with Briseis that thing that people do, men and women together.

But now Biblegateway has spoken. Mike Bird writes about 2 Tim. 2:2,

The ESV’s translation of pistois anthrōpois as “faithful men” is entirely possible and appropriate given the lexical meaning and gender of anthropos, and it corresponds with the largely patriarchal perspective in the Pastoral Epistles (e.g., 1 Tim 2:11-14).

First, I want to acknowledge that Mike Bird intends his post to be in defense of the NIV 2011, while upholding the accuracy of the ESV.

Next, let me express my first reaction - O...M ...G. Mike actually said, "given the lexical meaning and gender of anthropos." The lexical meaning of anthropos in the plural is "mankind in general." And the gender of the word anthropos is "common" gender. It is NOT a word of maculine gender. I don't know what Mike is using as a parsing tool. Yes, the form of the article is masculine, as one would expect when any group of mixed gender is referred to. But the word anthropos is NOT a word of masculine gender.

I sometimes imagine complementarians as having a great paper shredder in the sky, and they are stuffing the Greek language into it as fast as they can. They are hoping that at some point the Greek language will be completely shredded and then they can say that the Bible means whatever they like.

Come on, Mike. If you are reading this. Wake up.

PS

Here is the lexical meaning of anthropos at GreekBible.com.

ἄνθρωπος,n \{anth'-ro-pos}
1) a human being, whether male or female 1a) generically, to include all human individuals 1b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order 1b1) of animals and plants 1b2) of from God and Christ 1b3) of the angels 1c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin 1d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity 1e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul 1f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God 1g) with reference to sex, a male 2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one 3) in the plural, people 4) joined with other words, merchantman

But the word is listed as "masculine." I assume that this is because software does not have "common" gender built into it. Bizarre. Here is a discussion on the B-Greek list,

Perhaps in your learning of NT Greek you didn't learn about common-gender nouns, which may be either masculine or feminine just as there are adjectives of two terminations, one termination serving for both masculine and feminine and another for the neuter, e.g. AGAMOS, AGNAFOS, AGNWSTOS, or even the word for wilderness/desert that is very common in the gospels, ERHMOS, an adjective usually written as a substantive hH ERHMOS, probably with the noun GH normally understood. At any rate, ANQRWPOS [anthropos] and DIAKONOS are indeed common-gender nouns. What makes it clear in Romans 16:1 that DIAKONOS must be understood as feminine is the participle OUSAN that construes with it.

I hope you're not arguing that word-usage in the GNT is somehow different from standard Greek usage outside of the GNT. That is a notion that has generally been laid to rest for the better part of a century.

I hope you guys are listening out there! I hope that some of those men who have the big jobs and the big voice and the big influence will learn a little Greek some day.

(Yeah, I know, blogging in the middle of the day - waiting for the plumber.)

PPS

I think that I am losing my mind. Here is Colin Hansen on Biblegateway,

Though not quite the flash point that 1 Timothy 2:12 has become in the gender debate, 2 Timothy 2:2 presents a challenge for contemporary translators. Several modern Bible versions, following the KJV, identify the teachers Paul describes in this verse as men. The word Paul writes here is anthropois, which commonly refers to men. But some newer versions, including the updated NIV, identify them as people. What accounts for the difference? I asked our panel of scholars: “How should we identify the teachers Paul has in mind in 2 Timothy 2:2?”

What does he mean by "commonly"? If this word means "men, as in males" we are back to the stinky sock heaven, men only! (I say this with the humble awareness that I have stinky socks also, so don't jump to any conclusions about my sexist slip showing here.) BTW, doesn't Colin realize that "men" in the KJV means "people." What kind of alternate world have I slipped into?

Junia in manuscript GA 1424

The question of Junia has been brought up again on the Better Bibles Blog, where Iver wrote, in regard to the wikipedia article on Junia,

It is misleading to say that the accented form Ἰουνιᾶν has no support as such (?) in the ms. tradition, since the early mss did not have accents and the majority of those who do have accents, in fact do have the form. (Another move towards p/c is to change from Jewish to Judean, but that is a different topic.)

I am not sure what to make of this statement given that it makes no reference to any manuscript or source. I have never seen any manuscript mentioned as having the masculine accented form Ἰουνιᾶν. But that is just me. I have only looked at a facsimile of a few of the accented manuscripts, but that may be more than others have looked at.

I also have to ask myself if Iver is suggesting that there is some p/c reason why wikipedia says that the masculine form has no support. My understanding is that the reason why it says that the masculine form has no support in the manuscripts is because it doesn't. Iver attributes motive to wikipedia here, bringing in the suggestion that it is p/c. In the comment zone on the BBB, however, mentioning motives is not allowed for us commenters.

In spite of that, John Hobbins takes a broadside against me. While many other comments have been edited and deleted, this one was not. Perhaps it will be gone by now. Who knows.

Anyway, my major contribution in the comments on the BBB is that those manuscripts with accents, accented Junia as a feminine name. Above is GA 1424. Others are GA 676 and 909. There are only a few accented manuscripts online which contain Romans. Of the several which I have looked at, only the feminine accenting occurs. I have never been given the number of any manuscript which is supposed to contain the name accented as the masculine, and until then I see no reason to accept any exist. In spite of some weaknesses in the wikipedia article, I believe that it rightly indicates that Junia was a female, and an apostle. I leave the theological discussion of what an apostle is to others.

searching

I routinely search my blog using the search dialog box in the upper left hand corner. I tend to find things pretty quickly if I enter two or three words that would occur in a post that I am searching for. Here is the post for the verses where the ESV has translated anthropos in the plural as "men" even though the preface says,

But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew,

Clearly the preface is total bunk or only men shall be justified. The ESV translates,

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Romans 5:18

If heaven is going to have only men in it, then I don't want to go. It will probably smell of dirty socks. (I realize that my own socks get a little interesting after I wear boots all day, but just the same.)

Translation Forum continued

I deliberately left a pared down comment on a post at the translation forum and I now can see that it has been permitted. Here it is,

But it is nevertheless a move away from what came before.

Jerome used dominari

Erasmus used autoritatem usurpare

Calvin used auctoritatem sumere

I felt that this was not nearly as stimulating as my previous comment, the one which was removed. However, I shall take this under advisement and prepare more succinct comminqués in future. Thank you, Mr (or Madam) moderator.

I know that for other people this issue has become a bit threadbare. But I am rather fascinated by the lack of attention given to the Latin text of Calvin and Erasmus. Both had an enormous effect on the Bibles of the Reformation. However, along with the translation by Pagnini, they don't get a showing in Bible software, as far as I know.

I am planning a trip to Toronto this spring and will perhaps have another chance to photograph more Pagnini's Latin translation of the Hebrew. I think this is arguably one of the most influential translations in the history of Bible translation, and one of the most ignored.

Anyway, that is why the interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:12 has not completely bored me to death. I look at it in the context of the history of interpretation. I have less interest in what Eve atually knew about the tree and whether she or Adam were more responsible for bringing sin on manki... (whoooa baby) I mean "on humankind."

I do wonder, however, why Grudem, who has so vociferously rejected the translation "usurp authority," has so much to say on Eve's "usurpation" of male authority. "Usurpation" has such a harsh sound. It's a bad word, clearly. But try to claim that that is what authenteo really meant, and the switch is thrown, and we are off on another track. A woman cannot "lead in church." Such a delicate and proper phrase, such a good thing, to lead in church, but a woman may not do it. If she does, it is usurpation, because she has taken something that belongs to man. Whew.

(By "man" well, at school the social workers have anatomically correct dolls in order to make sure that of clear communication. I am not sure what to do on the blog. I will not draw a picture.)

CBMW will not commend the NIV 2011

Surprise, surprise, CBMW writes,

So, though we are genuinely thankful for the many positive changes in the new NIV(2011), and though we are deeply appreciative of the very different process by which our friends at the CBT and Zondervan pursued and unveiled this new version, we still cannot commend the new NIV(2011) for most of the same reasons we could not commend the TNIV. Our initial analysis shows that the new NIV(2011) retains many of the problems that were present in the TNIV, on which it is based, especially with regard to the over 3,600 gender-related problems we previously identified. In spite of the many good changes made, our initial analysis reveals that a large percentage of our initial concerns still remain. CBMW will be releasing an exact percentage after we complete our full detailed analysis. We are also still concerned about the frequent omission of the words, “man,” “brother,” “father,” “son,” and “he.”

As the evangelical community turns to CBMW for trusted counsel on contemporary Bible translations that are faithful and accurate in their rendering of gender-language, we will continue to point them to the many translations available today that do a better job than the TNIV and new NIV(2011) – translations like the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB), the New American Standard (NASB), the New King James (NKJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV).

If you want more information about gender-neutral translations we recommend that you look at the resources available at http://www.cbmw.org/Gender-Neutral-Bible-Resources. Though most of this material was prepared in relation to the TNIV, much of it still applies to our primary concerns about the new NIV(2011), and interested readers can still use it as a help in examining individual verses in the new NIV(2011).

The divorce is final, IMO. Complementarians will not share a Bible with egalitarians or middle of the roadians. Oddly, I consider myself one of the latter, in terms of Bible translation. I would share the Luther Bible, the KJV and the NIV2011 with a complementarian, but they will not share with me.

1984 and the complementarians

When I was in high school I read the dystopian novel, 1984, about a society where information was controlled and no one was free. It seemed like a remote and unlikely future. But it turns out that 1984 was the year that God was going to reveal his truth about 1 Tim. 2:12, and seal that dystopian future. Denny Burk writes,

I think a better way to render authentein would be exactly the way it was rendered in 1984 “have authority”—or an even better way would be “exercise authority.” I think “assume authority” gives a negative connotation to the word, and Andreas Kӧstenberger has shown that a negative connotation is not possible in this particular grammatical construction.

It turns out that these two youngsters, Burk and Köstenberger, have found the dystopian foundation for the subordination of women. Dr. Kostenberger has, of course, found a new interpretation for 1 Tim 2:12, one never revealed to the human mind before. He has proven, so he says, that authentein can only be positive because of its conjunction with didaskein. He was cited on Justin Taylor's blog saying,

The first word linked by the Greek coordinating conjunction oude (“or”) is the word “teach,” didaskein, which is frequently used in the Pastoral Epistles and virtually always has a positive connotation, referring to the instruction of the congregation by the pastors and elders of the church (e.g. 1 Tim 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim 2:2).

However, didaskein does not always have a positive connotation, even in the pastoral epistles as Titus 1 shows,

They must be silenced, because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

I know, I know, Dr. Kostenberger has a complicated formula which he runs this verse through to prove that didaskein has a thoroughly positive connotation in this verse. However, modified by dishonest gain, didaskein becomes thoroughly negative. Since this modifier does not occur in 1 Tim 2 that means that didaskein must be thoroughly positive there, and authentein likewise. Don't worry that authentein does not occur with a positive connotation elsewhere in Greek literature. Never mind that this is another place where the word authentein is used,

Therefore, everyone will walk according to his won desire, and the children will lay hands upon their parents, a wife will hand over her own husband to death and a man his own wife to judgment as deserving to render account. Inhuman masters will authentein their servants and servants shall put on an unruly disposition toward their masters.

Sweet, isn't it? But it's like this. If somebody says "she has cruelly abused me" then that means that the word "abused" is a thoroughly positive word with a positive connotation because it is the modifier which makes it negative. I hope you remember this the next time you tell someone to stop making an awful racket. Remember now that a "racket" must be a good thing, otherwise there would be no need to modify it with the word "awful." That is Dr. Köstenberger for you.

Anyhow, the fact is that "big brother" over at Biblegateway.com is suppressing comments and making sure that certain facts are not given too much air time. A few comments have been allowed and mine were originally published but then removed. I don't think there is much interest in anything preceding 1984, the beginning of history.

my ticket #

I attempted to contact Biblegateway, and received this response,

Your request has been received and assigned a ticket number of 8588. Our support staff works M-F from 9am-3pm EST and will review and respond to your ticket as soon as possible. We appreciate your patience.

Blessings,
BibleGateway.com

my comment on the translation forum

Update: I am profoundly shocked that this comment did not pass moderation. I felt that I went to extreme lengths to include only information from traditional and complementarian sources, and checked to make sure that each item was factual. The only revision that was needed, and I made this revision on the Translation forum, was that the Wycliff translation has "have lordship on the husband" rather than "be the lord of."

Otherwise, this comment includes only relevant facts. I will attempt to contact someone at Biblegateway.

__________________


Here is the comment I made on the translation forum. It is currenlty awaiting the moderator's approval. -

The history of interpretation can be traced easily from the time of the Vulgate. The Vulgate used dominari which had a negative overtone, as it was the verb also used in 1 Peter 5:3 when the author desribed how not to lead in church. From the Vulgate, the Wycliff version and Luther translated "be the Lord of" and the Douay Rheims 1610 "to have dominion over."

Erasmus translated authenteo into Latin as autoritatem usurpare, with a note added for cogere "to compel." This was the foundation for two divergent traditions, "usurp authority" and "use/have/exercise authority." The editor of the KJV, Lancelot Andrewes, in his many sermons, used the term "usurper" to describe a person guilty of a capital crime, an act of treason. There is no reason to suppose that "usurp authority" in the KJV did not have a very negative overtone.

Calvin translated authenteo as auctoritatem sumere, which lead to the French translation assumer autorité, and the English "assume authority," which is found in the 1855 Calvin Bible.

In the absence of any lexical evidence that the word had a positive overtone, the NIV does well to stand in the majority tradition.

Dr. Kostenberger has offered a syntactic argument that didaskein and authentein must have the same force, either positive or negative, and many agree with him. However, some believe that didaskein can have a negative force in certain circumstances as is found in Titus 1.

The most compelling argument for a negative overtone, is the notable lack of any occurences of authenteo with a positive connotation within several centuries of the writing of the NT.

However, given Calvin's commentary on this verse, I do not believe that "assume authority" was ever intended to be an egalitarian interpretation of this passage. It is, at least, ambiguous and so that leads to the question of whether this scripture can, in fact, be interpreted in such a way that women can be treated as men would wish to be treated.

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.

John Piper against the NIV

It is not quite accurate to state that there is no negative advertising against the NIV. Here we see John Piper doing his best to insinuate that because the translators of the NIV have used a different but entirely valid way to translate the Greek word, γὰρ, they are "troubled." Piper is clearly attempting to undermine people's trust in the NIV.



When Piper says that he needs all the words in the Bible, he is clearly not referring to all the words in the Greek Bible.

Trusted by Leaders

The ESV has revamped its website with a new motto "trusted." In particular, it is trusted by leaders.

When the TNIV was launched in 2002, only a few weeks passed (comment #8) before the ESV editor responded with a full scale negative attack, and soon following that, a leaders' statement of concern was signed that the TNIV was not "sufficiently trustworthy." Now we see that same rhetoric, that the ESV is "trusted" and by implication, other Bibles are not.

This time the new websites for both Crossway and ESV were ready within a week of the Biblegateway publication online of the new NIV.

My prediction is that the NIV 2011 will never become a trusted Bible for complementarians due to its translation of the gender verses, Rom. 16:1-2, Rom. 16:7, Eph. 5:21-22, 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Cor. 11:10, and Phil. 2:29. In addition to this, the NIV lacks footnotes that are to women's detriment, in Gen. 3:16, and adds a few, 1 Cor. 14:34, which are to their benefit. The paragraphing of 1 Cor. 14 also causes concern for some complementarians.

The NIV2011 is almost identical to the KJV in these gender verses, so there is no reason at all that a complementarian could not in good conscience use the NIV 2011. However, I have seen that many complementarians prefer to use a Bible which has been modified in the direction of their own doctrine.

I continue to believe that the KJV has been the only Bible which has unified Christians across the spectrum. I cannot think of any other Bible which has had such a wide appeal. It truly was trusted, in spite of the fact that it has its own quirks. If you are looking for a translation which is faithful to the Greek, for the gender verses, I continue to recommend the KJV, and by extension, the NIV2011.