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.

Denny Burk on 1 Tim. 2:12 cont.

I can post but not comment at the moment, so here is more on Denny Burk on 1 Tim. 2:12. Denny writes,

By the way, I should mention that Baldwin lists “assume authority” in his range of possible meanings for authentein, and he even says that the idea is “not intrinsically negative” (p. Women in the Church,” 45, 47). He includes it, however, as a sub-meaning of “to act independently” which he says “carries the idea of being one’s own authority” (p. Women in the Church,” 47). This appears to me as a contradictory point in Baldwin’s survey. “Assume authority” cannot be neutral if it is subsumed under the negative idea of “acting independently.”

Baldwin offers no examples in the centuries preceding or directly following the writing of the NT which show authentein to have a positive connotation. The one citation which Baldwin offered, in the Philodemus fragment, was shown to be incorrect. The fact is that D. Carson and the ESV study Bible and the Baldwin article have all disseminated false information.

Denny Burk and Douglas Moo on 1 Tim. 2:12 in the NIV2011

I recommend that readers visit Denny Burk's blog to see the interaction between these two men. So far, neither of them have acknowledged that the Calvin Bible of 1855 had "assume authority" from Calvin's Latin "auctoritatem sumere." The argument seems to be based on whether or not the translation is a clear complementarian translation.

Since I have not been allowed to post on this post of Denny's I would appreciate if any reader here would communicate the information regarding Calvin's Bible to the readers there, in defense of Dr. Moo. It is also worth mentioning that the Vulgate had dominari, and the KJV had "usurp authority."

Denny Burk on the NIV 2011

I am not surprised. As I thought, in the NIV 2011, it is the translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 which has complementarians outraged. It is the most important verse in the Bible, is it not? Women must be kept in place in order for men to collect their thoughts - or so some seem to think. Dr. Burk writes,

One cannot underestimate the importance of 1 Timothy 2:12 in the intra-evangelical debate over gender roles and women in ministry. There is a reason why countless articles and even an entire book have been written on the interpretation of this single verse. In many ways, this verse is the most disputed text in the debate. It is clear that Paul is prohibiting something, but just what he prohibits has been fiercely contested.

In response I wrote in a comment on his blog,

"Are you aware that “assumer d'authorité” was Calvin’s own rendering of this verse. (Docere autem muliere non permitto, neque auctoritatem sibi sumere in virum, sed quietam esse.) I am surprised that you and Grudem part so vigorously with Calvin on this point.

And the KJV had “usurp authority.” We know from the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes that to “usurp” was treason, a crime to be punished with death.

There is also a significant point which you have missed regarding Köstenberger’s conclusion. While many, both egalitarians and complementarians agree that both verbs didaskein and authentein must have the same force, not all agree that that force is positive.

Here is the discussion from Köstenberger’s website,

A case in point is I. H. Marshall. In his 1999 ICC commentary on the Pastorals, Marshall at the outset indicates his acceptance of the findings of my study by noting that it has “argued convincingly on the basis of a wide range of Gk. usage that the construction employed in this verse is one in which the writer expresses the same attitude (whether positive or negative) to both of the items joined together by oude.”

Yet Marshall proceeds to opt for a negative connotation of both terms “teach” and “have authority,” because he says false teaching is implied in the reference to Adam and Eve in verse 14. This, however, is hardly the case. More likely, Paul’s concern was with women being the victims of false teaching, not its perpetrators (see esp. 1 Tim. 5:14–15). Also, Marshall fails to adequately consider the above-mentioned point, that teaching is virtually always construed as a positive activity in the Pastorals and that it should therefore be construed positively also in 1 Timothy 2:12.

But “virtually always” is not at all the same as “always.” In Titus 1 didaskein is construed negatively, and this negates K’s argument. In fact, there are no clear positive occurences of authentein, and one clear negative example of didaskein in the pastorals, so we are obliged to consider the possibility that authentein is negative, as the BDAG indicates."

And in a further comment, I wrote,

"The history of interpretation on this verse should not start in 1984.

Vulgate – dominari
Erasmus – autoritatem usurpare
Wycliffe – have lordship on the husband
Tyndale – have authority
KJV – usurp authority
Calvin – assume authority [1855]
Luther – herr sei"

To be honest, I do not have an English translation produced by Calvin. There is, however, an English version which is called the Calvin Bible, and it appears to be an English translation of Calvin's Latin commentaries. For 1 Tim. 2:12, it has, "But I suffer not the woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be silent." This is from the 1855 Calvin Translation Society. I have no record of what English translation Calvin would have approved. Nonetheless, we can see that the rendering of the NIV 2011, "assume authority" does not originate in 2005, nor is it a novel and suspect translation. And yet, Denny Burk writes, "As you can see, the crucial change occurred in the TNIV 2005." Oh dear.

Update: Denny has deleted all my comments on this post. He has not acknowledged that "assume authority" is a translation option with a good history. Douglas Moo has now commented in defense of the NIV2011. This is déjà vu. I can hardly believe it. Everyone else is off analysing this and that in the NIV2011 but for some the only significant verse is 1 Tim. 2:12. Complementarians are not afraid to cast aspersions on their own people.

"Honor such men"

Those who campaigned against the TNIV, lead by the editor of the ESV, like to use the following verse as a foundation for their disapproval of the TNIV.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, Rev. 22:18

Wayne Grudem concludes his summary of concerns against the TNIV with these words,

If the TNIV should gain wide acceptance, the precedent will be established for other Bible translations to mute unpopular nuances and details of meaning for the sake of "political correctness." The loss of many other doctrines unpopular in the culture will soon follow. And at every case Bible readers will never know if what they are reading is really the Word of God or the translators' ideas of something that would be a little less offensive than what God actually said. "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it" (Deut. 4:2).

However, I cannot help but notice that Grudem was himself responsible for adding the word "men" to the ESV. In Phil. 2:29 it reads,

29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men,

In fact, this phrase, "honor such men" is now a quotable Bible phrase, one that was not available in the KJV. It is clear that Grudem, the editor of the ESV, feels that no words should be added to the word of God with the exclusion of the word "man" or "men." How silly of me not to understand this the first time around.

Here is the Greek for this verse, no "men" in sight.

προσδέχεσθε οὖν αὐτὸν ἐν κυρίῳ μετὰ πάσης χαρᾶς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντίμους ἔχετε,

When Paul writes about Epaphroditus and then says honour "those who are like him," we have to look at what it is about Epaphroditus that is significant in this passage, and whether women could meet the same criteria. Here is the passage in Philippians about Epaphroditus, and I then follow up with a similar passage in Romans 16, written about Phoebe and Priscilla.

But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. ²⁶ For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. ²⁷ Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. ²⁸ Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. ²⁹ So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, ³⁰ because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me.

¹ I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. ² I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. ³ Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. ⁴ They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

I cannot imagine any rationale at all for saying that Phil. 2:29 should be translated as "honor such men." It is very difficult for me to feel that the commentary promoting manhood in the Bible ought to be taken seriously. Very difficult indeed.

Rachel and Mary

Far from dying down, the gender debate is developing in some very entertaining directions. Rachel Held Evans has plans to spend some time with Mary Kassian at Southern Baptist Seminary. Naturally I am deeply concerned that some people may get the wrong impression about Canadian women from Mary Kassian. I personally cannot identify with the come thither sexuality latent in her photo shoot. I tend to a more casual look myself, and am not into leather. Oh well, I always think of Canadian women as a down home bunch who don't aspire to much more than a well-fitting pair of yoga pants and Uggs.

I am following Rachel Held Evans blog with avid interest although I do think the entire effort bears an uncanny resemblance to the Julie and Julia fiasco. In this case, Held Evans is imitating the stereotypical 1950's housewife, as she is represented in Mary Kassian's book, but as she never existed in real life.

As Kassian says, "Pornography and rape and homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered" back in the world of her childhood, that world which never existed. And of course, "once married, a woman could normally count on her husband to financially support her and the children." This is why there were so many orphanages. Orphanages where children were sterilized, back in the idyllic world of the 1950's in Alberta, and probably all across Canada, back in the good old days of Mary Kassian's youth.

Um. Just in case it sounds as if I am being hard on Kassian, this is what she has to say about those who don't hold to her view of womanhood. "Now days, the epitome of empowered womanhood is to live a self-serving, self-righteous, neurotic, narcissistic, superficial, and adulteress life."

She completely disregards the fact that many single women want to be empowered to care for their parents, their children, their pets and their house, as well as reach out to others.On top of that, most of them wish to support themselves - what a selfish and adulteress desire. Did I just write that? Will some save me from this kind of spelling blunder! I wonder who edited this sermon of Mary's?

NIV 2010

The NIV 2010 is available today on the Biblegateway website. There are some fascinating changes - I would love to have seen the inside trading on some points.

Here is the fun stuff . In Hebrews 2:17, the phrase "brothers and sisters" was tossed to the cutting room floor and replaced with "them."

For this reason he had to be made like them,^k]">[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17 (Or like his brothers) NIV 2010

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. TNIV

In 1 Tim. 2, "Christ Jesus, himself human" (TNIV) was replaced with "the man, Christ Jesus." HT Dave Ker, Better Bibles Blog. Some loss of meaning and literalness there, but in 1 Tim. 2:12, the NIV 2010 retains the wording of the TNIV, "to assume authority" thus rendering it a 'novel and suspect' translation, according to Wayne Grudem. In fact, "to assume authority" is close to the KJV, "to usurp authority" and identical with the English translation of the French Bible that Calvin was associated with (called in English Calvin's Bible.) Congratulations to the NIV 2010 team on keeping the TNIV wording here.

In Romans 16:7 Junia remains "outstanding among the apostles" but a footnote offers "esteemed by the apostles." In spite of the fact that there is no support for the translation offered in the note, this seems like a reasonable compromise. I find the compromises very cleverly done.

For other commentary, view this list.

Year of Biblical Womanhood

Rachel Held Evans has announced the topic of her next book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood. I have enjoyed reading the posts and comments on her blog ever since. Her audience is diverse and the comments are quite entertaining. Unfortunately commenters do not worry much about the sensitivities of complementarians so be warned. I don't think they mean any harm, and are not vicious, but many just can't get their head around many of the things that John Piper likes to smoke. I recommend To Vote or Not to Vote.

The end of perspicuity

I am not sure when the doctrine of perspicuity began. Perhaps it was during the Reformation that some decided the scriptures were clear and forthright. However, we can safely announce the end of perspicuity this year. It is now out in the open that complementarians dither endlessly about whether Ephesians 5:21 refers to non-reciprocated submission, or submission which is reciprocal, albeit different.

They are not the same thing, if you think about it. If submission is non-reciprocal, then the command in Eph. 5:21 is only intended for those Christians who are in roles of submission to other Christians, it is not an instruction for everyone. Some time ago after careful consideration, Denny Burk wrote,

I think “one another” is used in the non-reciprocal sense Ephesians 5:21 as well.

But the other day he wrote about Thielman,

He takes a different tack on the interpretation of “submitting to one another” in verse 5:21. He understands that both husbands and wives are to submit to one another, but they are to do so in different ways. Thus he maintains the Pauline notion of headship while distinguishing his view from the “mutual submission” interpretation of egalitarians.

For most complementarians, there are many different ways to interpret the words of scripture. As long as they all lead to the authority of the husband over the wife, one can still call oneself a complementarian. But great latitude is allowed in exegeting scripture. Why is Thielman acceptable? Because he distinguishes himself from egalitarians. Not because he has any particular understanding of scripture. In fact, relatively few jump to defend the clarity of scripture. Many jump to defend the authority of the male over the female.

More about kephale in Philo

On Denny Burk's recent post about a commentary of Ephesians, Derek writes,

What part of “in a manner” do you not understand about Philo’s text and explanation? The mechanics of his interaction with the other kings is simply not relevant here and Philo says as much. All that is needed is to understand the way a leader relates to his herd. That’s it. Read it again and more carefully and you’ll see it.

The difficulty is that "leader of the herd" is not a particularly literal translation of this phrase. I would prefer to see Derek engage with the passage in Greek, rather than continue to comment on the English. This is from Fitzmeyer, page 86,

Philo speaks of Ptolemy II Philadelphus as one who was outstanding among the Ptolemies and expresses it thus,


genoumenos kathaper en zōō to hēgemoneuon kephalē tropon tina tōn basileōn

being, as the head is the leading part in a living body, in some sense the head of kings [of the Ptolemaic dynasty]. (De Vita Mosis 2.5.30)

The word translated as "herd" is ζῷον, "animal, creature, image" found here,

πρῶτον μέν νυν τύπον ποιησάμενος λίθινον ἔστησε: ζῷον δέ οἱ ἐνῆν ἀνὴρ ἱππεύς, ἐπέγραψε δὲ γράμματα λέγοντα τάδε: “Δαρεῖος ὁ Ὑστάσπεος σύν τε τοῦ ἵππου τῇ ἀρετῇ” τὸ οὔνομα λέγων “καὶ Οἰβάρεος τοῦ ἱπποκόμου ἐκτήσατο τὴν Περσέων βασιληίην.”

First he made and set up a carved stone, upon which was cut the figure of a horseman, with this inscription: “Darius son of Hystaspes, aided by the excellence of his horse” (here followed the horse's name) “and of Oebares his groom, got possession of the kingdom of Persia. Herodotus Histories

The truth is that Philo's use of kephale is as a metaphor, and we are not exactly sure how to translate it. It is not an established way to say that someone had authority. Philo uses the word kephale elsewhere to denote a person of exemplary virtue. There is no indication that Paul wants us to believe that the husband in a marriage relationship naturally displays an exemplary morality that the wife would do well to emulate. The comparison is strained.

Here is a longer article about kephale in Philo. I regret that these are not full posts, but simply responses to a discussion which is ongoing on Denny Burk's blog, where I have been blocked.

The main question that I am left asking is why such a passage would be considered one of the most significant pieces of evidence that kephale means "authority."

Kephale in Philo

With reference to the discussion going on on Denny Burk's blog, all I can say is that the citation from Philo is proof against Grudem's taxonomy, which is as follows, stated negatively,

"we cannot find any text where person A is called the "head'' of person or persons B, and is not in a position of authority over that person or persons"

Ptolemy was called the head of the Ptolemies, but was not the authority over his father or other kings in his famiy line. In fact, the only person who was ever called the kephale of a family, tribe or nation of which he was the leader, was Jephthah.

I am not going to change my story on this.

If you want to talk about who is the "head of the household" then you have to go to another Greek phrase oikodespotes. In the verb form, this word is applied to women in 1 Tim. 5:14. In the New Testament, it appears that there were at least a few women who were the head of their own household - Lydia, Chloe, Nympha, the elect lady, and so on.

Any woman reading this needs to know that believing that the husband is the authority in the marriage, has no benefit in terms of getting into heaven, raising one's children well, bringing honour to God, or preventing divorce. Submission to an unpleasant spouse, either husband or wife, may seem to work in the short term, but it is highly dysfunctional in terms of maintaining a relationship, and is in fact, one predictor of divorce. People need to know the truth.

Response

I am not able to comment on Denny Burk's blog, but my material is discussed there. I will post in response this evening.

Venus and Mars - Love and Respect

I wonder why Venus and Mars have become such popular icons for the female and male in love. Why do we imagine that eros is the child of war and beauty? Why is "beauty submitted to war" even an erotic image in the first place? And why do some Christians invest such an notion with even a particle of truth?

In fact, we may find another romantic hero in mythology. Not Mars, the god of war, but Hephaestus, also known as Vulcan, the god of technology. Perhaps he was not the best-looking, the most buff and fit god of all the gods. He was a plain-looking creature, by some accounts a bit lame but nonetheless, the god of craft and fire, the god of forging and forming. What's to choose between war and craft?

Who loves a Vulcan, but Jane Eyre, that pragmatic young woman, who wisely rejects St. John Rivers, the staid clergyman, for Rochester, her personally flawed but much loved Vulcan. I am sure that by now you must think that I am in love with Spock, not so, although I wonder just how many real life males fall between Nimoy and Shatner.

In any case, it was not Mars but Hephaestus (that is Vulcan) who warrants our interest. And who did he marry? According to some traditions, Hephaestus was married to Aphrodite, (that is, Venus) but according to another story (the Iliad) Hephaestus' true mate was Charis (Grace.)

If I wanted to hijack a story to use as an icon for Christian mating, for seeking the perfect complementarian relationship, I would not touch Mars and Venus with a ten foot pole. I would chase after Hephaestus and Charis. (okay, so it doesn't make a great book title, "Men are Hephaestus and Women are Charis" (or Aglaia, the youngest grace.) Nope, that would not sell books. But it might be a love worth having.

In contrast to both John Gray, of Men are from Mars ..., and Eggerichs, of Love and Respect, I highly recommend John Gottman. All this to say, in an interesting way, that there is a great comparison between John Gray (Men are from Mars ...) and John Gottman right here. If I had to recommend any books - by anyone at all - on love and relationships, it would be John Gottman.

All this nonsense, or sense - depending on who you are - is because I received an email today thanking me for my series on Love and Respect, which I wrote about a while ago. I am no fan of this kind of pop psychology.

Love and Respect 1
Love and Respect 2
Love and Respect 3
Love and Respect 4
Love and Respect 5
Love and Respect 6
Love and Respect 7

There are a few more posts on this topic under Eggerichs.

preparing to be a help meet

Just when I think that I need to put the whole issue of biblical womanhood out of my mind, and enjoy a little fresh air, it inserts itself back into my life. Last week my daughter came home with "Preparing to be a Help Meet" by Debi Pearl. I actually read most of it, and found some of the anecdotes quite entertaining. It was an odd read, unsophisticated in many ways, and I can in no way recommend it. But I understand how a young girl, who is recently engaged, might enjoy reading it and fantasize a little.

Anyhow ... my daughter was horrified. She doesn't normally want to talk these things over with me, but she did admit that this book was so much worse than anything I had mentioned. Oh well, she'll survive and she won't be overly influenced by it.

We did confirm that this is the same Debi Pearl who still advocates on her website that parents buy half inch flexible tubing in order to give their children a series of "licks" on their feet or legs whenever they stray from the straight and narrow. This is still up on their site. Go figure.

Anyway, I do think that women need to consider what it means to "help" others. Being a caregiver is a major preoccupation of women my age. Some are caring for parents, moving them into supported living facilities, or moving them into their own house. One friend has just acquired a new house that she can live in with her parents.

Other women are paying for their children's university education or helping them get on their feet financially. Some women are caring for husbands, siblings, or others in their family.

The important thing is that each of us will feel the need at some point in our life to be the caregiver, the one who provides for others that we love. The question then is how we prepare for this. It is something that we don't really want to think about. We might want to fantasize that we will be the one who is cared for. This may happen for us also, in our turn. But we don't need to prepare for that. We need to prepare for those times when we have to care for others.

Preparing to be a help meet, then, in my view, is a vital consideration. We need to be able to support ourselves, to pay for food, shelter and eduation for our children. We may need to buy a house, or cover medical costs or travel to be with our parents. Ideally these responsibilities are ones that we will share with a spouse. But chances are that half of us, or more, will be on our own at some time in our lives with these responsibilities staring us in the face.

We need to be in a position also to care for others beyond our famility and close friends. We need to be able to reach out to others, to change the living conditions of those who cannot care for themselves. How can we do this?

Preparing to be a help meet - nothing is more important.

FIRST TIMOTHY 2:8–15

While I have not been blogging much lately, I have still been reading the blogs, and it seems that the topic of women and the Bible has not cooled. Quite the opposite, it is warming up. I want to contribute a few notes, as I can.

Noel Bullock of British Columbia has written a paper called FIRST TIMOTHY 2:8–15. HT CBE Scroll. She covers material that I have presented on this blog in the past and does a very thorough job of it. I think my readers will be grateful to have her paper.

Young Earth Egalitarians?

RJS has been blogging at Jesus Creed. Let me say that while I am comforted at the steady blogging on behalf of women in ministry, I am hurt and horrified at how the actual woman herself is abandoned to her fate. RJS writes,

I’ll be blunt – to attach complementarianism to the gospel in any fashion is to distort and damage the gospel message. Complementarianism devolves to rules. But God will use our efforts anyway. To attach egalitarianism to the gospel message is to distort and damage the gospel message – it takes the focus off of Christ and onto us, and this has dire consequence. Egalitarianism devolves to rights.

So are women not to have rights? Men have rights. It is okay, just fine and dandy, for men to have rights. Oddly even Saint Paul had rights. He asked to be recognized as a Roman citizen so that he would not be beaten. Why did he do such a craven thing and stand on his rights? A woman should never do this. She should just put up, even if what is happening to her is wrong.

I have the sense that the insistance that egalitarianism is about rights and that is not gospel, is expressed by someone who has no idea what it would mean to live out one's life from birth to death without rights. Clearly this writer would not rate abolition of slavery as a gospel essential either.

Please judge by my sarcasm that I am still hurting from what it meant to me to be part of a complementarian community. The truth is that I was lucky. I have a job and I can support myself and my children. I feel privileged and grateful to my parents. Many people come out of fundamentalism with the sense that they have wasted years of their life in futility. Vanity, I think it is called. Emptiness. Feeding the beast of fundamentalism.

PS. In the comment thread, there is a call out for young earth egalitarians. I am pretty sure that some women who read this blog are young earth egalitarians, although I am not. You might want to take a look.

In all honesty, I am grateful to RJS for keeping this topic alive. However, I get the impression that he thinks it is no big deal to live one's life without basic human rights, such as going in and out of one's house freely, working to earn money, controlling how many times one becomes pregnant, attending the church of one's choice and so on.

a question for Gospel Coalition

In today's post, Scot Mcnight is engaging the blogosphere on the issue of women in ministry. HT New Leaven

KJB spotting

A few years ago, I used to post on spotting citations of the King James Bible in literature. To tell the truth, I don't think that I have ever spotted any other translation in a work of English literature. This could just be me, but I don't think so. The King James Version is by far the most cited and most recognized translation of the Bible in modern English literature.

Here is my most recent find,

Its gonna be okay, I whispered to myself, knowing, as the words trotted through the fain hope in my mind, that I'd uttered the certain jinx formula. The saying, pride goeth ... before a fall ... is condensed from the second collection of the Book of Proverbs, 16:18 - Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. It's attributed to Solomon. If he did say it, Solomon was a man who knew horses intimatley well; much better than I did ...

This is from the monumental novel, Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts, page 692, published in 2003 and there are rumours that it was to be made into a movie with Johnny Depp in the lead role. What other translation of the Bible would Depp cite - really ??

Although I fully support modern translations of the Bible, the literary importance of the King James Bible should not be ignored.

Faithful in little ...

‘Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much.' Luke 16:10.

This is in response to T.C.'s post on Dan Wallace's recommendation on a Bible version. I might have resisted commenting on his post except that I believe that the NET Bible is a translation which should never be recommended to a woman. I don't think women need to be exposed to this level of misogyny. Some of the notes misrepresent the original so seriously that I hope that my own daughter never discovers that this Bible version exists.

But I won't go into that tonight. I want to look at the simple inaccuracy of one note. Here is one of the notes for Romans 16:7.

6:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,⁶ my compatriots⁷ and my fellow prisoners. They are well known⁸ to the apostles,⁹ and they were in Christ before me.

My remarks are in blue.

8tn Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (epishmo") is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”).

This is open for debate. It is not a "fact" that there are two contrasting uses of this word.

The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30).

The commentator says "frequently, if not usually." We can conclude from this that is would be at least equally likely that the dative would be used for a comparative notion. In fact, there are times when the genitive and the dative are used synonymously.

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

When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6).

Pss. Sol. 2:6 has not been shown to contain an "elative" use of the word ἐπίσημος.

Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients.

ἐπίσημος is not a word of perception.

In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.”

There is no support for this.

See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here.

Mike Burer and Dan Wallace are fully aware that their argument is not supported by the facts. I look forward to seeing if the note for this word is altered when the NET Bible undergoes a revision. In the meantime, the authors have not responded to those who have countered their article, Bauckam, Epp and Belleville.

I feel strongly that even if a commentator knowingly misrepresents only a few verses of the Bible, he or she should not be trusted on the rest of the Bible.

Plans for a Vancouver CBE group

Barb Orlowski emailed me recently with this notice proposing a chapter of the CBE for Vancouver,

There's been a buzz among the local members of Christians for Biblical Equality since Dr. Barb Orlowski enquired about a chapter in the Vancouver and Lower Fraser Valley area. Since there are no local chapters at the present time there is keen interest in exploring the possibility further among those who are connected with CBE. If you would like to explore with us, please contact Barb.

Christians for Biblical Equality is an organization of Christians who believe that the Bible, property interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all racial and ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of scripture as reflected in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

For more information about CBE, visit their Website at www.cbeinternational.org.

To connect with someone locally and find out how things are unfolding, please email Dr. Barb Orlowski in Langley: orlowski@telus.net. Or phone her at: 604 - 534 - 7870.

Subservient to men

Sometimes people wonder when a woman bristles. But it is clear that some complementarians do think that women are to be subservient. At Parchment and Pen, Michael, (I assume it is the blog author who wrote this) writes,

Egalitarianism: Theological position held by many Christians (contra complementarianism) believing the Bible does not teach that women are in any sense, functionally or ontologically, subservient to men. Women and men hold positions in society, ministry, and the family according to their gifts, not their gender. The principle of mutual submission teaches that husbands and wives are to submit to each other equally. Prominent egalitarians include Doug Groothuis, Ruth Tucker, William Webb, Gorden Fee, and Linda Belleville.

Imagine that! Terrible, isn't it to think that some Christians do not think of women as subservient to men. Shocking.

But men who write things like this are still treated as great buddies by many egalitarian men.

What I am looking at right now

I am at a teacher tech conference right now. Here is what we have just watched.

Update: Crap, just as I posted this, I noticed that the keynote speaker had said my name and everyone was staring at me. It turned out that she had a long quote from one of my articles on special needs students and udl up on the screen.

I do have some unpublished articles as well. I have had a lot of non-writing projects on the go lately but I do need to get back to writing some day.

Salander

I have just finished reading the trilogy and viewing the first two movies in Stieg Larsson's series. I have noticed many basic misunderstandings from those who have only seen the movies. I haven't much time but here are some central themes in the books.

Lisbeth Salander is a young woman who suffered from several kinds of abuse as a child. Her father caused her mother lasting physical and mental injury in front of Lisbeth. Lisbeth was later institutionalized and restrained with a straitjacket for months on end. All her appeals to social workers and psychologists were unacknowledged since the Swedish government did not want a record of her father's existance. Lisbeth is not just an example of what happens as a result of abuse, but of what happens as a result of unacknowledged abuse.

Lisbeth is declared incompetent because she does not answer questions posed to her by the psychiatrist during a psychiatric evaluation. This raises the very real issue of how to tell the difference between selective mutism, low verbal IQ and Aspergers. While the story makes clear that Lisbeth is on one level a genius, we don't know for sure if she is selectively mute because of trauma or if she really is an individual with Asperger's syndrome.

Lisbeth is called bisexual by some reviewers of the movie. This completely overlooks the fact that Lisbeth has an constant attachment and desire for the main character, Michael. He is, on the other hand, unable to return her love since he is promiscuous. Ultimately, he feels that he is too old for her, but he may consider settling down with a woman who does not appear until the third book.

Lisbeth engages in sexual activity with a female friend with the understanding that this is an expression of physical intimacy and tenderness that she is in need of and has not experienced from her parents. She is not bisexual in the sense of desiring a female life partner.

I know too many children who have experienced some measure of the abuse that Lisbeth Salander suffered. The series was a fascinating read for me. The movies seem to leave out anything at all that I found interesting in the book. The character of Lisbeth Salander is very well protrayed, but the complexities of her life are drawn too sketchily to get a sense of her morality.

Eat, Pray, Love, on the other hand, is a much better movie than a book. Actually, they are both rather appalling, but I wanted to see what some other people are reading and viewing. I was rather amused to find that an earnest complementarian quoted from Eat, Pray, Love recently to prove that biblical womanhood is written in our hearts. The truth is that I don't eat pasta, I don't like to chant, and being run over would NOT be my preferred way to meet a guy. Sheesh.

ad hoc

Sometimes I really miss the Better Bibles blog and its commenters.

Has Hebrew gender usage influenced English?

Jim Hamilton asks this question in his post, Was Gender Usage in the English Language Shaped by the Old Testament in Hebrew?

I am quite open to considering that biblical usage has affected our language so I am willing to consider this. Jim opens his post with this context,

I’m not presenting a thesis here, just making some observations and posing a question. In the guidelines for a dictionary article I’m in the process of writing, I read this:

In particular, articles should avoid referring to “man” (likewise “mankind,” “men,” “he,” “his” and so on) generically. Language often regarded as patriarchal should be modified to avoid giving wrong impressions.

Jim then discusses the use of the Hebrew word adam in Gen. 1 - 5, where it is used to refer to both men and women, to refer to the human race, and to refer to an individual person. (I have to ask, at this point, if the Hebrew word adam can refer to "a man" as a single male human being? If anyone can offer an example, that would be great.)

Next, he presents some thinking out loud on this topic. He makes some good points.

So let me rehearse some things we know, and then I’ll me ask my question: We know that William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible profoundly shaped the English language. We know that many, many users of the English language—people whose use of it is/was widely imitated by others, authors, poets, and such—were profoundly shaped by the use of the English language in the Bible, not least the stately King James. Knowing these things, here’s my question:

Was the generic use of the masculine (man, he, him, etc.) urged against in the quote above something that entered the English language because man is spoken of this way in the Hebrew of Genesis 1–2?

And having asked my question, I have another observation. Earle Ellis once explained that he quit the NRSV translation team once he realized that the translation was being driven by an egalitarian agenda. He noted that more literal translation philosophy results in the thought patterns and language uses employed in the Bible shaping the language of the target-culture, whereas more dynamic equivalent translations risk the target culture setting undue boundaries around the renderings of Bible translators.[1]

How shall a man respond to these things? He can be shaped by his culture, or he can speak and write the way the biblical authors did. If it was good enough for them . . .

Regarding the influence of Tyndale's translation, I would agree that it has had enormous influence, but I have also found that in certain cases, it has not had the influence that some people attribute to it. For example, an editor of the ESV told me that "propitiation" was in the Tyndale translation. However, it is fairly common knowledge that Tyndale created the word "atonement" to translate those Greek words that are normally translated as "propitiation" in the King James Bible. The use of the word "propitiation" was wrongly attributed to Tyndale's translation.

So, I am curious to see how Tyndale translated the Hebrew word adam. Usually, it is translated as "man" or "Adam." However, in Numbers 31 adam is translated as "women" because it refers to a group of all females. In the King James Version and subsequent Bibles, adam is translated as "persons" in Numbers 31.

Just this brief discussion provides some data. I will summarize as much relevant information as I can from this and other language resources.

The Hebrew word adam can be translated into English as

- a man
- Adam
- a human life
- persons
- women

I assume that it can also refer to a group of men, but I cannot come up with a reference for this.

The English word "man" can translate the following Hebrew words,

- adam
- enosh
- geber
- ish

So, right away, one can see that there is enormous difficulty in mapping Hebrew into English.

I believe the following is also useful information. In Hebrew, Greek, Latin and German, there were different words for "man" referring to human beings, and "man," a male/citizen. I personally think that we are better off in modern English with both "human being" and "man.."

Hebrew - adam/ish, geber
Greek - anthropos/aner
Latin - homo/vir
German - Mensch/Mann

Finally, I personally would go first to German and Middle English to find out the precedent of the word "man" in Tyndale's translation. In Luther's translation, of course, adam is translated by the word Mensch. I know that it might seem that the English word "man" is closest to the German word Mann, a male. However, that is not the case. In German, the word for "someone" is quite simply man, a person, a human being, a somebody, an indefinite pronoun referring to a person.

And in Middle English, of course, there is man, also "someone," an indefinite pronoun, as in German. For a male person, there is the word wer/were. And that is how we know that a werewolf is a male human being who transforms into a wolf at night.

If God had wanted to call the human race after male human beings, he would have needed to use a word designating maleness in Hebrew, and this might have been translated as were by Tyndale in an effort to be specific. We might have retained the word were in English, if the attribute of maleness had been considered important to the early translators. The human race might have been called were, which is just a little bit better than being called has been.

Somehow, I am in favour of asking the kind of questions that Jim Hamilton asks, but I find the research does not lead to simple answers. Or does it? Am I a man? Yes, I am a "somebody." Am I a woman? Yes, a stereotypic woman, in fact. Am I a were or a has been? No, but I will be some day, in the manner of all human beings.

Update: This is my response to Denny Burk's response to Jim Hamilton's discussion. I don't know whether Jim will publish my comments but this is what I posted on his blog.

Next, I would like to respond to these points of Denny Burk,

Usually, a linguistic justification goes something like this. “We can’t use generic masculines because language has changed, and we don’t want to confuse readers. Modern readers are likely to mistake generic “he” as a signifying only males. Therefore, we cannot use it.”

This justification at least has the merit of being linguistic, though I think it is profoundly wrong.

My research indicates to me that the following men mistook the generic "he" pronoun in 1 Tim. 5:8 for a reference to males only - Dennis Rainey, Russell Moore, Robert Sagers, Stuart Scott, John McArthur and Owen Strachan. It appears not only readers of the Bible are confused but also expounders of the Bible are confused.

I think feminists were right to argue that patriarchy is embedded in language (though I think they were wrong to attempt an artificial expunging of the usage). Masculine terms are routinely used in a generic sense in scores of languages, and I think the usage probably stems from a patriarchal impulse that originally informed the language. It’s ish then a derivative ishah. It’s man then a derivative womanor (womb-man).

To be parallel to Hebrew, we would need to see adam and adama as a parallel to "man" and "woman". However, adam and adama, are parallel to "human" and "humus", as Robert Alter translates them, in order to perserve the literalness of the Hebrew. Alter is commited to translating literally in order to reveal the meaning and the form of Hebrew, its poetry and rhythm.

I wouldn’t press any deep anthropological points as if men are therefore the “default” sex. But I do think that the name and its derivative reflects a patriarchal sense. That adam would stand for both man and woman is not surprising in this kind of a linguistic world. But it’s not just Hebrew. The phenomenon occurs in numerous languages.

Hebrew has four words which English translates as "man" and Greek, German and Latin have two words. English is much better able to indicate the Hebrew pattern if we use "human being" for adam, and "man" for ish. It is not a perfect match, but closer than simply using "man" for four distinct Hebrew words.

Jana Chapman Gates on Complementarianism

Gates has written an article for Christianity Today on complementarianism - Woman as Folly. Denny Burk has written it off as caricature. I thought it was relatively mild.

However, it is interesting that Denny Burk jumped to the conclusion that Gates reported that the teaching she was exposed to said that women were more prone to sin. Here is what Gates wrote,

The speaker on the DVD said these verses showed that women should appreciate the desire of men to analyze and provide counsel. But I had a hard time moving beyond the underlying premise, at least as I heard it: Women are foolish.

But Burk misreads her article and writes,

Gates’s article is interesting, but it is ultimately not that helpful. Mainstream complementarians are not making the case that women are more prone to sin than men.

And that is not what Gates said. She said that mainstream complementarians are teaching that women are not as able to analyze as men. Here is Tom Schreiner on male and female differences. I think his views here are fairly mainstream.

because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity.

Complementarians are saying that men are more analytic than women. Complementarians also believe that men have the right to make decisions for women. Two plus two .... as they say. I would suggest that Denny analyze Gates' article a little more carefully.

Thomas Schreiner, “An interpretation of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15: A dialogue with scholarship” in Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 Eds. Andreas Kostenberger, Thomas R Schreiner and H. Scott Baldwin (Grand Rapids: Baker Book Houser, 1995) 145-6.

The Bible and its Traditions

Jim West has blogged about a new set of reference works called La Bible et ses Traditions. I noticed that Jim passed on a list of resources. Since I have many additional resources, I felt that perhaps I should list them here.

Studylight
Greek New Testament
Look Higher (200 Bible translations)
The Greek Text of the Orthodox Church
Septuagint
NETS
German Bible Portal
French Bible Portal (godieu)
Hebrew-English Bible
Hebrew with Rashi
Calvin's Latin commentaries and translation
Erasmus Center for Early Modern Studies
Peshitta
Gothic Bible
Geneva Bible
Julia Smith's Bible
Hekman Library

That's a start. This does not include lexicons, etc. I'll see what I can do.

Douay-Rheims 1610

When researching Bibles on the internet, it is always better to view a facsimile rather than an electronic version. Of course, they are not searchable in the normal way, and resist the student who wants to line something up using software.

Here is 1 Tim. 2:12 in the Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims. This Bible is found in electronic form on many sites.

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.

But I have found the 1610 version of the Douay-Rheims so far only here, where we can read,

But to teach, I permit not unto a woman, nor to have dominion over the man: but to be in silence.