My prophecy on Peter Kirk's blog came true ...

I am sure that Peter will be gratified to realize that the prophecy I made on his blog has come true. Sometimes I may appear to be cynical, but I would rather be prepared if disappointment is inevitable. Kurk Gayle has reminded me that I commented on Peter's blog,

I predict that complementarians will completely reject the new NIV because of 1 Tim. 2:12, 1 Cor. 11:10, the paragraphing of Eph. 5:21-22, and Romans 16:7. John Piper has already spoken vociferously against the NIV 1984, perhaps to pave the way for a full rejetion of the NIV 2011.

Peter had said in his post,

I have been encouraged to see no strident general rejection of the NIV update on the blogosphere.

Enough time had not passed. The steam was building. The negative responses came and keep on coming. I was especially disappointed to find the Biblical Studies Carnival link favourably to a negative post on the NIV 2011. Notably that post included this passage,

In Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist contexts – the largest church polities in the US – a reaction against gender-sensitive translation has set in. Both faith traditions seek to retain a degree of independence from prevailing cultural trends. This is no doubt salutary.

I believe that it needs to be said, that not all women find the ways in which the RC and SBC counter cultural trends to be salutory. In the past, it was slavery, now it is the rights of women to be treated as equals. What is salutory about that?

I feel that a woman should not read the Biblical Studies Carnival. I try to withdraw from time to time, to protect myself from the awareness of what others think. I don't want to know how many bloggers in the bibliosphere, who, in spite of knowing that adelphoi was listed as "brothers and sisters" in the lexicons of the 19th century, who, in spite of knowing that "brethren" includes women and "brothers" does not, - how many of those bloggers still resent the fact that women want to be addressed according to the best lexicons, as "and sisters."

So, whoever you are, whatever you think - I am not some new age, liberal, radical whatever comes into your mind. I am a person, who, as a teenager, many years ago, was taught that adelphoi meant "brothers and sisters" since the beginning of time.

I want to have in my Bible, the same verses that I had growing up. I want 1 Tim. 5:8 and 2 Tim. 2:2 as they now appear in the NIV 2011, as they were understood up until the recent past. This is what they meant when I was young, and this is what they mean to me now.

Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.

So, don't offer women a Bible shot full of holes. Offer her a complete Bible. That is the kind of Bible men want. Why shouldn't women get a complete Bible also? I realize that some bloggers promote gender accurate Bibles, although they may wish to question some details in the NIV2011. I believe it is time to promote gender accuracy in the bibliosphere.

The most contested verse in the NIV 2011

This was my guess from the beginning, and I think it needs to be known. There is one verse which is determining the acceptance or non-acceptance of the NIV 2011. This one verse is the most important contested verse in the translation. Here is what Denny Burk has said about 1 Tim. 2:12 in the NIV.

One other item worthy of note on this rendering. By their own admission, “assume authority” is neutral where the previous rendering “have authority” was not. In other words, the 1984 NIV favored an interpretation that supported a complementarian point of view. The 2011 NIV now has a rendering that can be used to support an egalitarian view. If we accept the translators’ argument that “assume authority” is neutral (which I don’t), the translators have nevertheless acknowledged that the egalitarian view is no longer excluded by the NIV’s rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12. This is a tremendous reversal on the most contested verse in the gender debate.

If Dr. Burk speaks as a representative of CBMW and SBC, which it appears he does, then he is expressing their view that they do not want a Bible that is without complementarian doctrinal input. The egalitarian viewpoint is no longer excluded by the NIV. They cannot live with that ambiguity.

It is important to realize that the word which he wants translated as "to have authority" has a varied history. Here are the relevant variants,

Jerome - dominari
Erasmus - autoritatem usurpare
Calvin - auctoritatem sumere (translated in 1855 as "assume authority")
Luther - Herr sei

Dr. Burk traces the history of the translation of 1 Tim. 2:12 from the NIV 1984 to the present day. When I was young, 1984 was in the dystopian future, but now it is considered by some as the beginning of time.

More on the SBC, NIV, Denny Burk ...

The Committe on Bible Translation has responded to attacks on the NIV 2011. Denny Burk responds to them and I respond to his list. More info in the list at the bottom of this post.

Here is what I wrote on his blog, in response to his post - I hope that he will allow this comment. I appreciate the fact that he has allowed many of my comments to be posted lately. I feel somehow that he is a person who is interested in honesty.

Denny,

Please let me engage further – I cry for the translators I know, both egalitarian and complementarian. I know them and I know that they are on both sides of this divide.

1. The data only recounts changes from the NIV 1984 to the NIV 2011. None of the data is actually based on whether or not the Greek original has a masculine pronoun or not. In my opinion, this data does not relate to translation at all, but to a shift from an earlier style of English and what is understood today. I can’t interact with the data either because I cannot ascertain what the data is trying to show with regard to translation.

2. I have demonstrated that many preachers for CBMW do not understand that 1 Tim. 5:8 is a generic masculine in English, and as such, does not reflect a masculine pronoun in Greek. The passage is entirely gender neutral in Greek and should not be used by theologians and preachers to support male headship and yet it is.

Please explain to me how this is. The only explanation I can see is that these men did not understand the generic use of “he.”

http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2009/12/cbmworg-exegetes-1-tim-58.html

3. “Assume authority” is derived from Calvin. Any discussion of this verse should start there.

4. You say that context is king, but the preface to the ESV claims that it desires to respect concordance. You can’t have both. Changing 2 Tim. 2:2 is a devastating setback for young women in high school and university, for women on the mission field, for Christian women everywhere. When they were young they memorized that verse, and then as adults in church, they have the verse removed.

5. I don’t know if there is a study of how many times most Bibles insert a masculine pronoun where there is no pronoun in Greek. And the ESV adds the word “men” in English where there is no word at all for men.

I could understand if someone just said “This is Christianity, women have to be silent.” I have heard that before. But this – this movement against the (T)NIV – this brought me to the internet. It is breaking my heart.

Brethren and the tattoo

It turns out that "brethren" is, in fact, a gender-neutral term in English today. Niles turned to Daphne, on a rerun of Frasier tonight, and said "you and your tattooed, mumu-wearing brethren!" However, he could not have said with the same meaning, "you and your tattoed, mumu-wearing brothers!" It seems that "brethren" is gender neutral and "brothers" is not.

On the other hand, perhaps Niles meant that men wear mumus. Hmm. I don't think so. This is why I find the KJV quite acceptable, and then the NRSV and NIV 2011. "Brethren" is gender inclusive, and "brothers and sisters" is gender inclusive. "Brothers" is not.

It happens that in Hebrew as well, the word often translated "brothers" also meant all the brothers and sisters in a biological family. We see that use in Joshua 6:23. When it says that the "brothers" of Rahab were saved, it means "all the brothers and sisters" as we can see in chapter 2. That is the simple usage of the word, the meaning, one might say.

NIV 2011, SBC and brothers and sisters

For those who believe that a gender inclusive translation is a post modern endeavor that veils the original languages, please consider the following.

At the time that the King James Bible was printed, there were two terms "brethren," which referred to groups of people who had a common humanity, and may or may not be male; and "brothers," who were the male children in the same biological family. "Brethren" was the common way to address men and women together in the family of God. In the 1940's, "brethren" was changed to "brothers" in the Revised Version, and for the first time, the translation gave the impression that the scriptures in the original languages may have actually addressed men only.

However, since the very first Greek-English lexicons were published in the 1800's, the plural of the Greek word adelphos, which was translated as "brothers" in the RSV, was said to mean "brothers and sisters." This is because adelphoi (plural of adelphos) was a term which was commonly used in Greek to refer to the brothers and sisters in a family. It was the normal term for "brothers and sisters." In English "brothers" is not the normal way to refer to the brothers and sisters in a family. "Brothers" in English is not a term which has the same usage as adelphoi in Greek.

The simple fact is that "brothers" was never an adequate translation for the Greek word adelphoi. In the 1980's the New Revised Standard Version made the correction, and adelphoi was translated as "brothers and sisters." Not long after that other translations followed suite - the NLT, NET, CEV, TNIV and now the NIV 2011.

But rather than rejoicing in the accurate inclusion of sisters in the common address of the authors of the epistles, many today have rejected the phrasing "and sisters."

I honestly do not understand why there has not been a community wide acceptance of accuracy on this point. There should have been a seamless transition from "brethren" to "brothers" (briefly) and then to the more accurate "brothers and sisters." This is what one would expect, and for many this has been the case. But I ask myself why so many, men and women that I know, reject this simple truth.

NIV 2011 and the SBC resolution

More Links

Rev. Mark Stevens
Quadrilateral Thoughts
Aristotle's Feminist Subject
Bridget Jack Jeffries

A few links,

Apprentice to Jesus
συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life
Claude Mariottini
A 'Goula Blogger
Unsettled Christianity
The Wartburg Watch

More tomorrow. Here is something that puzzles me. The SBC rejects the wording of 1 Tim. 2:12, "to assume authority" in the NIV 2011. Since that is only a moderate version of what is in the KJV, "to usurp authority" does that mean that the SBC would not accept the KJV? Does this leave us without any common Bible, not even the KJV? That is what I am trying to figure out.

NIV 2011 and 1 Tim. 2:12

In the debate about the NIV there is no question that adelphoi means "brothers and sisters" as a primary meaning of the word. It was the word to describe Cleopatra and her brother Ptolemy. There is no question that the Greek pronoun tis is gender neutral.

But the reason why the NIV 2011 has a resolution against it is as follows,

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.

The verse in question in the NIV 2011 is -

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[a] she must be quiet.

Here it is in the KJV -

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

And here it is in the Calvin Bible.

But I suffer not the woman to teach, nor to assume authority over the man, but to be silent.

So it turns out that the NIV 2011 has a resolution against it because of the way in which it is similar to the King James Bible and the Calvin Bible.