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.)