Can authentein mean "to lead in church?"

This is much disputed. Odd, since the Southern Baptist Church and many other churches prohibit women from leadership of a mixed group on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:12.

After a blog discussion with Andreas Köstenberger a few years back, he posted on the topic, 1 Timothy 2:12—Once More.

The discussion is broken into two parts. First, there is the argument from lexical evidence. Regarding this, Köstenberger 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.

Note that Köstenberger makes no assertion that there is any evidence for a "positive" connotation. He only says that "the liklihood was suggested." He does not attach his endorsement to this notion. I suggest that he knows there is none.

He then suggests that we cannot come to a firm conclusion on the basis of lexical data alone. However, here is an occurence of the word in the second century AD,

3 cent. AD) Hippolytus (d. AD 235) On the End of the World. De consummatione mundi, in Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schrften, ed. H. Achelis in De griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller, 1.2 (Leipzig: Himrichs, 1897), 239-309.

“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.”

I am omitting a couple of other occurences because they are found in reconstructed fragments, but neither of them have a positive connotation. There are many other occurences of cognates of the word authentein and some of these are very negative.

Köstenberger then proceeds to discuss the grammatical arguments for why the word authentein should be considered to have a positive connotation. He indicates that other scholars agree that authentein and didaskein should have the same force. I agree, and believe that authentein and didaskein are both related to a negative activity in this case. Sometimes teaching is negative - it is unhelpful or false. This use of didaskein occurs in Titus 1,

they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.

And, in fact, Köstenberger recognizes that Marshal comes to this conclusion.

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.

But Köstenberger continues,

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.

Köstenberger does not support his statement that "this ... is hardly the case" and he ignores the fact that didaskein does occur with a negative connotation in Titus 1:11.

In conclusion, only one interpretation fits the facts - that of Marshall. Authentein is most likely a word with a negative connotation, and in this verse didaskein refers to some innapropriate teaching which women were involved in. It may very well be that the author of this epistle meant that women should not teach in a mixed group. I really cannot tell from this verse.

One thing is very clear to me. There is no evidence, lexical, semantic, grammatical or otherwise, which supports the notion that authentein could mean "pastoral leadership."

Bible scholar final showdown

I am very happy to link to this post in the Bible Scholar Showdown

Fee and Witherington are prolific writers of commentaries. Wright has one major commentary on Romans as well as his “For Everyone” series. All three are New Testament scholars who have lead their respective fields. Fee is well known for his Pauline studies. Witherington for his Socio-Rhetoric studies and Wright for his Third Quest and historical Jesus work. Whatever the result there will be a book give away so spread the word and lets see who wins the final showdown!

I honestly do believe, and I say this sincerely, that egalitarians are in a position to be excellent scholars of the Bible. Egalitarians cross the spectrum, some finding egalitarian principles in the Bible, and some not so much. Egalitarians can look at both possibilities, or come down somewhere in between, as I do.

In any case, I am proud to say that all three of these theologians have been formative for me.

A shocking example of proto-feminism!

Or one could also ask "Is it possible to preach the gospel in German?" Many pastors have told me that the gospel cannot be properly preached using a Bible which does not have the phrase "adoption of sons."

But of course, Luther's Bible does not have any such thing. In fact, there are very few sons at all in Luther's Bible. I have long wondered how such a Bible could be used to bring about salvation. In fact, I believe the entire Reformation should be reexamined on the basis of Luther's translation of Gal. 4:4-7

Da aber die Zeit erfüllet ward, sandte Gott seinen Sohn, geboren von einem Weibe und unter das Gesetz getan,

⁵auf daß er die, so unter dem Gesetz waren, erlöste, daß wir die Kindschaft (being a child) empfingen.

⁶Weil ihr denn Kinder seid, hat Gott gesandt den Geist seines Sohnes in eure Herzen, der schreit: Abba, lieber Vater!

⁷Also ist nun hier kein Knecht mehr, sondern eitel Kinder; sind's aber Kinder, so sind's auch Erben Gottes durch Christum.

(But when the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, ⁵to redeem those under law, that we might receive being a child. ⁶Because you are children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, dear Father." ⁷So here is now no longer a slave, but a child; and since a child, so also an heir of God through Christ.)

Of course, I am still waiting for the statement against the Luther Bibel. But Calvin was no better. Nor Coverdale.

The image is from A compleat English dictionary: oder, Vollständiges englisch-deutsches Wörterbuch 1783.

What does wifely submission look like?

We understand that CBMW teaches that men may have to "reestablish rulership" over their wife, and "exert leadership." This is a proactive attempt to ensure that the wife does submit. The language for leadership of the wife, is similar to that of the children, and the question may be asked by the husband "how do I enforce subordination?" The husband may resort to punitive measures.

But what does CBMW say that submission of the wife looks like? Here is Bruce Ware again, cited by Jeff Robinson on the Gender Blog,

"The level of Jesus' submission to the Father, then, is complete, comprehensive, all-inclusive an absolute. There are no exceptions to his submission and obedience, for he never once sins at any point throughout all his life."

David Kotter then explains the relevance this has to a wife,

The wife is called to imitate the submission of Jesus Christ to the Father. Jesus Christ is so great that both a man and woman together are needed to display his glorious leadership and servanthood.

Imagine if something of that nature, as seen in the first quote, were enforced on a wife. We can only imagine that in the dark world of perversion, a human being might impose this on another human being in this way. But it would be psychotic, not glorious.

However, CBMW constantly insists that this submission must be joyful, voluntary and fully endorsed by the wife. She must smile while having her brains scooped out. This incredibly twisted and deeply troubling abuse is going on under the name of Christianity.

When will Christians stand up and repudiate this infringement on the humanity of women? I am deeply concerned that an organization is allowed to continue counselling people to impose psychological damage on women with impunity.

I know that some complementarians say that total mental and physical control of a wife by a husband would be "sick" and yes it is sick. What are they doing to eradicate this teaching?

Spousal abuse: CBMW blames the wife

Bruce Ware is the author of "Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry"

Most complementarians hold, then, that sin produced a disruption in God's order of male headship and female submission, in which a) the woman would be inclined now to usurp the man's rightful place of authority over her, and man may be required, in response, to reestablish his God-given rulership over the woman, and b) the man would be inclined to misuse his rights of rulership, either by sinful abdication of his God-given authority, acquiescing to the woman's desire to rule over him (and so fail to lead as he should), or by abusing his rights to rule through harsh, cruel and exploitative domination of the woman.

Please read this more than once. A man may be required to establish rulership over his wife, and he may abuse this right. But why does he do this? According to this passage, it is in response to his wife's inclination "to usurp the man's rightful place of authority over her. This is what "most" complementarians hold, according to CBMW. The CBMW places the blame for spousal abuse on the wife. This directly impedes a woman's ability to escape and receive appropriate help for the danger she is in.

This has been up on the CBMW website for several years. Read about the Demand for an Apology from CBMW on the Associated Baptist Press.

Asking for an apology from CBMW

I would like to pass on an email which I received just now. Please link to it if you possibly can. I am happy to provide evidence that each of these concerns regarding CBMW is valid. Let me add that I have many more concerns than those listed here.

Dr. Randy Stinson, President
Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood
2825 Lexington Road, Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280

And

Dr. J Ligon Duncan III
Chairman of the Board of the CBMBW
First Presbyterian Church
1390 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39202

The Freedom for Christian Women Coalition met on July 24, 2010, in Orlando, Florida, and agreed and affirmed this Demand for an Apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood because of the concerns as listed in the following pages.

For the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.
Sincerely,



Freedom for Christian Women Coalition

DEMAND FOR AN APOLOGY FROM THE
COUNCIL ON BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND BIBLICAL WOMANHOOD

At a time in our church history that the main focus should be on winning lost souls and spreading the gospel to a hurting world, we fear for the future because the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood has placed a greater priority on women’s submissive role rather than on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is with that thought in mind that we make these statements.

1. We are concerned that men are being taught that they are god-like in their relationship to women within the church and home. As the mothers, wives, and daughters of these men, it is our concern that this doctrine is setting them up for failure as Christian fathers, husbands and sons;

2. we are concerned about the sin that evangelical church leaders commit when they deny the love of Christ fully to women simply because they were born female;

3. we are concerned about the damage this causes to families when husbands and fathers are told that they have Headship over their wives and daughters;

4. we are concerned about wife abuse, girlfriend abuse, and abuse to female children that takes place in many homes where evangelical men are taught that they have earthly and spiritual authority over women;

5. we are concerned that the children who attend churches that subscribe to the principles of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood will grow up not knowing the full redemptive power of the blood of Jesus for both men and women;

6. we are concerned for the mental and emotional development of girls and boys who attend churches that teach males have superiority over females;

7. we are concerned that men who are taught that they have Male Headship over a home and church do not feel that they are not accountable for abusive attitudes and actions towards women;

8. we are concerned about the mistranslation of the scriptures by complementarian translation committees and by the false teachings propagated by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

9. we are concerned that pastors who teach and preach male domination/female subordination cannot relate in a loving, Christ-like manner to female members of their congregations because they have already judged them and found them lacking;

10. we are concerned that the issue of wifely submission, promoted so heavily by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, is more about power and control than about love or obeying the Word of God.

It is because of these concerns that:

1. We demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood acknowledge the harm that has been done to the church body by The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, confess it as sin, and denounce it;

2. we demand that denominational leaders and all churches and seminaries which have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do the same;

3. we demand a public apology from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, and from all heads of seminaries and Bible colleges that have adopted The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, for the inestimable damage this statement has done to all Christians whose lives have been influenced by it;

4. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to promote the Biblical design of functional equality for all Christians, both men and women;

5. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood begin to speak out against pastors who continue to demean women and oppress Christians by the use of The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

6. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood chastise pastors who claim that abuse of women is acceptable and justified because the wife is not submitting to the husband;

7. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood make known to every boy and every girl who attend an evangelical church, that God is their head, and that authority over another human being can come only from God;

8. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach men that they share equally in the burden of society’s ills, and that all that is wrong with society today cannot be blamed on women;

9. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood do everything in their power to teach seminarians to show the love of Christ to both men and women;

10. we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood teach pastors to be loving towards those Christian men and women who disagree with The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood;

11. and, finally, for the sake of all Christians, men and women, we demand that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood, make a public apology for the misuse of Holy Scripture as it relates to women, and cease to publish or promote The Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

Shirley Taylor, bWe Baptist Women for Equality presented at the
Seneca Falls 2 Evangelical Women’s Rights Convention July 24, 2010 in Orlando, Florida

AFFIRMED BY THE FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN COALITION AT THE SENECA FALLS 2 EVANGELICAL WOMENS RIGHTS CONVENTION
JULY 24, 2010 IN ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Grudem's thoughts on male language

Here are a few thoughts on the masculine language of the ESV from its editor Wayne Grudem, who wrote The Gender Neutral Bible Controversy.

On one side stands feminism and egalitarianism, promoting its own way of salvation and distorting the truth, insisting that there should be no gender-based differences between status, prominence, or authority of one person and another. On the other side stands the teaching of the Bible that God affirms both the honor of all human beings and the God-ordained differences among them, including differences in men’s and women’s roles in marriage. page 144

“He” includes both men and women, but does so using a male example as a pictorial starting point. In a subtle way, this use brings along with it an unequal prominence to men and women page 145

Feminism replaces biblical honor with a misguided attempt to wipe out the differences in people with respect to prominence, order, leadership, and representation. page 147

Wayne Grudem could not be clearer if he tried. The difference between men and women is that women are not equal with men in status, prominence, authority, order, leadership and representation. It is the last item which is his concern in this book. Dr. Grudem believes that the use of the generic "he" and many other male terms, is part of the inspired word of God. He recognizes that the prominence given to men and women in the language of the ESV is unequal and he believes that this is the way it should be.

In fact, the ESV adds many male pronouns that are not in the Greek original. The ESV uses many male terms that were not used in the Bibles of the Reformation. The masculinization of the scriptures started in the 19th century and is taken to many lengths today.

Adoption of children: the NRSV and the ESV

TC has responded to my question as to why he has chosen the ESV rather than the NRSV as his standard Bible translation in this post, A few thoughts on why I chose the ESV over the NRSV. TC offers three main points, first mentioning that the ESV was a winner but not my much in Paul's epistles - no details here.

Second, he provides the example of "fornication" rather than "sexual immorality" for porneia. While I agree with TC on this point, I was also amused because I remember being lectured on how the TNIV was a terrible translation based on the fact that "fornication" had been replaced by "sexual immorality!" I am not able to take this as a serious substantive argument - but I do agree with TC on this point.

His third point is that N. T. Wright found that some of the gender decisions are not as "felicitious as they might be." I am unable to interact with this, simply because there is no indication that N. T. Wright was comparing the NRSV with the ESV when he made this comment. It is a nice quote but fundamentally irrelevant.

Now for the specifics. In spite of a rather amorphous beginning to his post, TC was able to corral a couple of words which he suggests benefit from better gender decisions in the ESV than in the NRSV. This is very helpful for me, because I am always asking myself why the NRSV has not become a standard Bible accross the English-speaking church.

The two terms which TC holds up as difficulties are the word huiothesia etymologically "placement as a son," and adelphos, etymologically "uterine sibling," of "from the same womb." You may find this kind of detail tedious and pedantic, but I hope to demonstrate to TC that those who react as he does to what "seems an overly-zealous move to avoid gender-specific language" in the NRSV, have not "dug deeply" and, in fact, have not even scratched the surface of language. (May she forgive me - language that is.)

TC goes into more detail in an earlier post on adoption of sons, concluding,

So I say to my brothers and sisters who are egalitarians, Don’t be enraged at “adoption of sons” or “sons” in English Bible translations like the ESV and HCSB. Instead, embrace the terms “adoption of sons” and “sons,” because of their theological and christological import.

As a footnote, I hear the objection, “Well, “adoption of sons” is too gender specific, because it excludes women (sisters in Christ).” The solution is not to opt for “adoption of children.”

Rather, we need to teach our people how to read their Bibles—how to dig down deep, until the texts yield their meanings, ala Luther, and to enjoy the discovery, not of our world, but of the biblical world.

But in an effort to make the truth clear, some of our newer English Bible translations have found themselves dumbing down the text too much.

I will argue that "children" is a better term in every way, providing continuity with the Hebrew bible, concordance with Paul's other writing and is the foundation of the Reformation.

First, in the Hebrew bible, the phrase בְנֵי beni can be literally translated as "sons of" and some of the time, it does refer to male offspring only. However, when it is used with the name "Israel, " בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל it is usually translated as "the people of Israel" in the ESV. Often we also read the phrase עַמִּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל "my people, the children of Israel." It is recognized that the expression "children of Israel" occurs in apposition to "my people" and refers to the same group of people.

The pattern then for the ESV is that when the word בְנֵי beni refers to males only, it is translated as "sons;" and when it refers to a people, it is translated as "people" except for those times where "people" already occurs in the verse. In that case, to provide variation, the phrase "children of Israel" is used. This is the pattern then for the Old Testament of the ESV. If the word "sons" is used, then it means "males only."

The expression "sons of God" does occur in the Old Testament a couple of times, in Gen. 6 and in Job. In Gen. 6 this phrase appears to mean something like "males with malevolent super powers and a user attitude toward women." In Job it is a bit more difficult to determine whether the "sons of God" are a malevolent or not. In summary, in the Old Testament of the ESV, the phrase "sons of" refers to males, and so this is consistent with the preface of the ESV.

In Stephen's sermon in Acts 7, teh ESV translates his reference to the people of Israel as the "children of Israel" and the pattern found in the Old Testament is continued. The people whom God has chosen are referred to as the "children of Israel. "

Paul takes up the language of "children" in Romans 9, where he uses the phrase "children of Abraham" and "children of God" in Greek τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ. Paul is not concerned with maintaining the use of a word with male semantic content, or male form. The word τέκνα is neuter.

Later in this same chapter, Paul does write, τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ, and this is translated in the ESV as "sons of Israel," with a note that this is the same term as "children of Israel." Is maleness in view here? There is no indication in the references to σπέρμα, the "offspring" or the τέκνα, the "children" of the υἱοί the "sons" that maleness enters into it. In fact, Paul cites the phrase "my people."

For Paul, the phrase which the ESV translates as the "sons of Israel" refers to the "children of Israel" and those people whom God calls "my people.' The only problem with the ESV is that suddenly and for the first time, breaking continuity, it presents this term in English as "the sons of Israel" and continues with "the sons of "God." Clearly, for Paul, a masculine term in not necessary, or he would not be so comfortable with using alternate terms. He appears to use the phrase υἱοί Ἀβραάμ to indicate a formal equivalent with the Hebrew. However, the underlying Hebrew phrase is always translated into English as "children of Abraham."

The ESV has made an odd decision here to masculinize the phrases in their translation. There may be an assumption on the part of many readers that "sons of God" was found in earlier Bibles. I do believe that an equivalent may be found in the Vulgate. However, the Reformation Bibles, and the King James Bible were comfortable with using "the children of God" in these passages.

And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Romans 8:26. KJV

TC is especially concerned about the phrase "adoption of sons." I will briefly mention that the Luther Bible, Calvin's Latin translation, and the French Bible de Geneve, and the Bishop's Bible, all had the phrase either "adoption" or "adoption of children." Regardless of the technical use of the word in Greek, there is no indication that Paul has maleness in mind, since he so frequently uses gender inclusive terms in his discussion. Evidently Luther, Calvin and important English translators did not sense that maleness was in view in these passages. The Reformation did not suffer for it.

(Of course, TC may wish to go back in time and instruct Paul, Luther and Calvin on how to really read the Bible. That is another option.)

In short, for the Hebrew Bible, for Paul, and for the Bibles of the Reformation, the "people of Israel" and the "people of God" were called by a term which has been considered gender inclusive most of the time. The masculinization of the scripture in English began in the late 19th century, when hyper literal Bibles came into vogue, and the REV and the RSV introduced "sons of God." There is no reason to continue this trend, unless one considers the 19th century sacred n some way, but we should seek an historic response, a response based on the intent of Paul and the foundation of the great Bibles of the Reformation. We should use gender inclusive language because this is in keeping with the heritage God has given us.

I hope to continue this discussion with a further post on the translation of adelphos.

Who is a person under the Hebrew law?

Here is something that I am puzzling over. In the preface to the NRSV, the translators are explicit in saying that the term in English must indicate to whom the word is referring. i.e. does the word used in Hebrew or Greek refer to only men, or to all human beings.

Typically, one might say that ish in Hebrew refers to a male, head of a house. But I am not at all sure about that. Here is the passage which puzzles me. It is clear that translators of different Bible versions are not too sure either. In the NRSV, verse 14 has "a man" but in verse 18, it says "anyone."

10 No lay person shall eat of the sacred donations. No bound or hired servant of the priest shall eat of the sacred donations; ¹¹but if a priest acquires anyone by purchase, the person may eat of them; and those that are born in his house may eat of his food. ¹²If a priest’s daughter marries a layman, she shall not eat of the offering of the sacred donations; ¹³but if a priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced, without offspring, and returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No lay person shall eat of it. ¹⁴If a man וְאִישׁ eats of the sacred donation unintentionally, he shall add one-fifth of its value to it, and give the sacred donation to the priest. ¹⁵No one shall profane the sacred donations of the people of Israel, which they offer to the Lord, ¹⁶causing them to bear guilt requiring a guilt-offering, by eating their sacred donations: for I am the Lord; I sanctify them.

17 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: ¹⁸Speak to Aaron and his sons and all the people of Israel and say to them: When anyone אִישׁ אִישׁ of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing in Israel presents an offering, whether in payment of a vow or as a freewill-offering that is offered to the Lord as a burnt-offering, ¹⁹to be acceptable in your behalf it shall be a male without blemish, of the cattle or the sheep or the goats. ²⁰You shall not offer anything that has a blemish, for it will not be acceptable in your behalf.

However, in the ESV and the TNIV, verse 14 and verse 18 both have "anyone." Ish in the Hebrew may refer to any "participant", or any "man." The translators disagree on this. This appears to me to be a fundamental problem. We do not know if a woman is a person before the law.

This is the type of question that David Stein writes about here and in comments on this post. I hope that Joel Hoffman will also weigh in with comments. I would appreciate any insight into who ish is in the Hebrew law.

Preface to the NRSV

Here is the complete preface to the NRSV, and I have cited the part referring to gender here. I have added paragraph formatting for this blog.

During the almost half a century since the publication of the RSV, many in the churches have become sensitive to the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language towards the masculine gender, a bias that in the case of the Bible has often restricted or obscured the meaning of the original text.

The mandates from the Division specified that, in references to men and women, masculine-oriented language should be eliminated as far as this can be done without altering passages that reflect the historical situation of ancient patriarchal culture. As can be appreciated, more than once the Committee found that the several mandates stood in tension and even in conflict. The various concerns had to be balanced case by case in order to provide a faithful and acceptable rendering without using contrived English.

Only very occasionally has the pronoun "he" or "him" been retained in passages where the reference may have been to a woman as well as to a man; for example, in several legal texts in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In such instances of formal, legal language, the options of either putting the passage in the plural or of introducing additional nouns to avoid masculine pronouns in English seemed to the Committee to obscure the historic structure and literary character of the original.

In the vast majority of cases, however, inclusiveness has been attained by simple rephrasing or by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage. Of course, in narrative and in parable no attempt was made to generalize the sex of individual persons.

The key phrase here is that if we know that the Greek or Hebrew word refers to both men and women, then the English should use an inclusive term in order to indicate this. Fair enough, one might think.

Kurk Gayle's Response to "Who do you sleep with?"

I have reproduced Kurk Gayle's response to my earlier post. He writes about Nancy Mairs and Rachel Barenblat. I love how well Kurk has picked up on my main point, that "ancestors/fathers" is parallel to "my people."

________________________________________

Beyond the Binaries for Suzanne McCarthy

Suzanne has written a blogpost this week entitled, “Fathers or Ancestors: Who do you sleep with?” If you read it, then you get what she’s after. She’s going beyond the binary and is letting male Hebrew writers and male English translators go too. She actually starts with what the male Hebrew speaker (quoted, I presume, by Moses) is saying:

Here is Jacob, asking to be buried with his “fathers.” Does this translation “fathers” make any sense in this passage, or should we think rather of the term which is used as a synonym, “my people?”

What McCarthy is getting at is the parallelism of the Hebrew of Jacob, the appositive of the noun phrase אֶל־עַמִּי with the noun phrase אֶל־אֲבֹתָי. She points us readers to what the NRSV translation team has done my letting the appositive, the parallel, be between “my people” and “my ancestors” in their English just as it is a parallel, an appositive, for Jacob speaking Hebrew (and for the writer Moses recording what Jacob says). And then she address us:

But you might ask me whether or not the Herbrew really says “fathers.” It does, and it does not. In Hebrew, as in Greek, the common word for “parents” is the plural of the word for “father.” But it is clear from its constant use for parents of both genders that this is its meaning – parents. In the English of today, the word “fathers” cannot refer to parents of both genders.

I’m going to ignore McCarthy’s metaphorical personification of the language as a thing so personally really saying something. I’m going to remind her blog readers and you that it’s really people, persons using Hebrew and humans using English, who are really saying “fathers” and “ancestors” and “parents” and “אֲבֹתָי.” Likewise, our meaning, Moses’s meaning, Jacob’s meaning, McCarthy’s meaning, my meaning, your meaning, the NRSV team’s meaning, the ESV team’s meaning, are really what we mean. The words don’t mean unless we make meanings. And yet, the crucial point is this: if the binary has to be “fathers” vs. “mothers,” then McCarthy is urging us meaningfully to go beyond the binaries. We can, she says. And Jacob and Moses do, I say. They’re saying “ancestors” by saying “people” — by saying and writing אֶל־עַמִּי with the noun phrase אֶל־אֲבֹתָי.

(Now, there’s a bit of a discussion following her post in which some are insisting on a binary, a division, a separation and distinction between “gender inclusive translation” and “gender accurate translation.” Even to that, I say, Let’s go beyond the binaries here, please, and bravely so.)

Why I don't post the biblioblog image

I have never posted the biblioblogger image on my blog and there are many reasons why not. Originally, I did my bibleblogging at the Better Bibles Blog, and I really enjoyed that. I tried to blog about 30% of the time on women's issues, and given the dearth of women biblioblogging, I thought that was fair. However, it caused problems and I left.

I felt at that time that the community did not want a woman talking about women's things. I also felt that a very few people were trying to imply things about me that were not true. I don't know why this happened, I never figured it out, but it hurt me deeply.

However, now I find that I still can't feel that I am a full participant. Whenever someone speaks in a positive manner about a scholar who is actively trying to keep women under submission, I feel that this is wrong.

Here is an example. In this video, Carson says something about the word authenteo that is false. He says, "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." This is simply not true. There are NO cases of authenteo with a positive overtone. None. He must know this, because he must know that he doesn't know of any.

Perhaps he is quoting someone he trusts, or is saying something that he thinks is true. However, he is definitely saying something for which he has not seen the evidence.

How can an otherwise careful scholar do something like this? I understand this kind of thing as a display of the true feelings of a man toward women - that a woman must be restricted and subordinated in order to coexist with him in his universe. I cannot be part of that.

Let's also mention his aggravated "sigh." What are women? Pesky little children that need to be humoured? What does his overall tone and comportment say about his attitude toward women? I wish I knew, but nothing good, I am afraid.

Women's jailors - that what I get out of this.

Does the Bible put women down? Response to Ken Pulliam

I have been following a series of posts which started with The Persistence of Patriarchy by Anne Eggbroten. In this article she visits John MacArthur's church and finds, of course, that the submission of women is alive and well. But she asks,

Here’s the question: Is God permanently committed to the kinds of social hierarchy that existed in the first and second millennium B.C.E. and continued until recently, when education and voting were opened to women? Or does the vision of Paul in Galatians 3:28—“There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus”—take precedence?

Al Mohler responds to this in his post,

At this point the agenda becomes clear. Eggebroten argues that the church has simply perpetuated the patriarchal traditions of the Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures that formed the social context for the early Christian church. Against these she contrasts the Apostle Paul’s beautiful declaration in Galations 3:28 — “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”

Ken Pulliam, in turn, weighs in on this,

Eggebroten would like to find a change in perspective on this subject from Paul but she is misguided. In addition to the passages that Mohler cites, Paul also told women to be silent in the church and learn from their husbands (I Cor. 14:34-35) as well as implying that women are more easily deceived than men and need to allow their husbands to make important decisions while they concentrate on motherhood (I Tim. 2:12-15). This was the role of women in ancient cultures (and today in fundamentalist churches) and so, one should not be surprised to find the Bible supporting it.

What I find astonishing here is the weight given to two passages from the epistles, 1 Cor. 14:34-35, and 1 Tim. 2;12. There are arguments which undermine the current interpretation of each of these passages. Mohler responds to this as well,

To read Galatians 3:28 the way Eggebroten reads the verse, you would have to believe that the Apostle Paul was in direct contradiction with himself, when he restricts the teaching office to men in letters such as 1 Timothy and Titus.

Or . . . you can try to deny that Paul actually wrote those latter letters. Eggebroten accuses conservative evangelicals of ignoring “evidence that the ‘pastoral epistles’ (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were written in honor of Paul long after he died and reflect a second-century debate over women’s roles in the church–whether to conform to social customs for the sake of winning converts, or to advocate radical social equality (and even celibacy) in the last days before the Second Coming.”

What this reveals, of course, is the argument of many evangelical feminists that we can discard the teachings of the Pastoral Epistles. We can keep the Apostle Paul we like (taking Galatians 3:28 out of context, for example) and disregard the Paul we do not like.

Nor are the Pastoral Epistles the only biblical texts subverted by this line of argument. With reference to 1 Corinthians 14:35 (”Let a woman learn in silence with full submission”), Eggebroten suggests, among other options, that “verses 34-35 began as someone’s marginal comment, later copied right into the text.”

With this approach to the Bible, you can simply discard any text you dislike. Just dismiss it as a marginal comment, or deny that Paul even authored the text. This is where the denial of biblical inerrancy inevitably leads — the text of the Bible is deconstructed right before our eyes.

Mohler is quite well informed on all the arguments against these two passages. Let's review them. First, there is an opinion among many scholars that the letters to Timothy, Titus and the Ephesians were not written by Paul. There is no current consensus on this, so one can only discuss this as a theory.

However, the fact remains that the writings attributed to Paul are often in contradiction. Is he promoting celibacy for single men and women, or is he counselling marriage? Is he advocating reciprocal and matching marital obligations, as in 1 Cor. 7, or asymmetrical ones, as in Ephesians 5. Whether we are reading letters from two different times in Paul's life, or the letters of two different people, there is a contradiction and we need to admit this.

Regarding the status of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as a marginal note, I find it instructive that the NET Bible online considers this to be the most likely scenario. Most text critics agree that it was a marginal note at one time, but they vary with regard to when and by whom they believe this note was written, and then incorporated into the body of the epistle.

This is an unusual occurrence. There are no other passages of this length, which began their career as marginal notes, which are now incorporated into the text, without comment in our present Bibles. The Net Bible claims that although they were marginal notes, they were written by Paul.

I guess this begs the question. Is anything written by Paul to be considered canonical? If so, why were other letters, which we know Paul wrote and have been lost, not preserved by the Holy Spirit for posterity? For example, suppose verses 34-35 were written by Paul. How do we know that they were canonical? How do we know that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were not just a non-canonical after-thought which came to Paul's mind? Or perhaps Paul did not add this note himself after all.

We do know for a certainty that early manuscript copiers altered the text to reduce the status of women. For example, in the passage referring to the church in Nympha's house, Col. 4:15, the pronoun referring to Nympha was altered to the masculine by a scribe for the purpose of masking the leadership role of a woman.

It is a fifity-fifity choice, in my view, whether 1 Cor. 14:34-35, was added by a scribe who did not like women, or was added by Paul as an afterthought. But we still have to deal with the whether this would qualify as "inspired by the Holy Spirit" or simply Paul's private opinions.

Is it really biblical feminists who are deconstructing the Bible, or is it the reasoned scholarship of text critics in general, both conservative and liberal? Even the most conservative text critics realize that there was something irregular about these verses.

On 1 Tim. 2:12, we have the continued assumption that authentein really does say "to exercise authority" which Mohler knows very well is not the lexical meaning of the word. This word is unusual and can only be found 2 or 3 times elsewhere within a few centuries of the epistle. Although there are many cognate words which could enter our discussion, the only times the word authentein itself was used, it had a negative meaning when it dealt with one person's power over another. It cannot mean that women should not "function as church leaders" - this is not one of the possible meanings of the word - but rather that some particular woman, or women, should not continue in their assumption that women had the right to dominate over men.

Neither 1 Cor., 14:34-35 nor 1 Tim. 2:12 are clear examples of the scriptures forbidding women to participate in the leadership structures. Other scriptures do indicate that Paul was probably speaking to men only, but there is no use of the word "male" and the word for "husband" appears, only to indicate that if married, the person designated as husband must be faithful.

It appears to me that usually, in the letters, Paul was referring to male leadership, but I see no attempt on his part to ensure that leadership be restricted to men only. I do not believe that either 1 Cor. 14 or 1 Tim. 2 are clear enough to fill that function.

In contrast, we have many women who were in leadership position, as head of their house, deacon, apostle, leader of a group of Christians, and so on. These are Lydia, Phoebe, Priscilla, Nympha, Chloe, and the "elect" lady. I can see no other explanation except that Paul did accept women as leaders over a mixed group of people. There seems to be no other way to describe Chloe or Nympha.

While Ken Pulliam describes himself as an agnostic atheist, I would have to call myself an agnostic Christian. I am open to Ken's arguments and do not feel that I have to defend every passage in scripture. I honestly do not find scripture to be a cohesive and clear set of texts. I regret that anyone would try to pick out two or three passages to shape their life, or the life of all women. This is truly misguided. However, I am still sympathetic with the aims of women who engage with the text as biblical feminists.

Zachary has added a personal post on Christianity and Patriarchy in response to Ken Pulliam.

Fathers or Ancestors: Who do you sleep with?

The burial place of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah, is called in English, "The Cave of the Patriarchs" but in Hebrew it is the "Cave of Machpelah." According to Genesis, these six people were laid in the grave in this order; Sarah, Abraham, Isaac and Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob. There is no male priority to this list.

Sometimes English gender treatment in translating from Greek or Hebrew brings about fundamental misunderstandings. So it is with the word "partriarchs." We understand in English that this word means "father-ruler" or "male-ruler."

But, in fact, the term "patriarchs" is often used as a translation for a term referring to our "ancestors" of both genders, those from whom we are descended. And it refers to both fathers and mothers. By translating this concept with the word "patriarchs" or "fathers" we are communicating a predominance of maleness, when, in fact, there was none in the original.

Here is Jacob, asking to be buried with his "fathers." Does this translation "fathers" make any sense in this passage, or should we think rather of the term which is used as a synonym, "my people?"

All these are the twelve tribes of Israel. This is what their father said to them as he blessed them, blessing each with the blessing suitable to him. ²⁹Then he commanded them and said to them, "I am to be gathered to my people; bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite, ³⁰in the cave that is in the field at Machpelah, to the east of Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite to possess as a burying place. ³¹ There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife. There they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife, and there I buried Leah— ³²the field and the cave that is in it were bought from the Hittites." ³³When Jacob finished commanding his sons, he drew up his feet into the bed and breathed his last and was gathered to his people. Gen. 49 ESV

Who did Jacob want to rest with in death? His grandparents, his parents, and his wife. Abraham had bought the field to bury Sarah, and then later he was buried beside her. Each man with his wife. Because perhaps a man wants to rest with his wife, or his mother. In fact, this speaks to us of the integral unit of the family, not of the father representing the mother; but truly, the father wishing to be buried with his wife.

There is a family intimacy to this narrative which is completely belied by the term "patriarchs." Patriarchy, in English, is understood to mean that the father rules the children and the wife. The wife is under the rule of the husband. However, the "patriarchs" of the Hebrew Bible are simply the "parents", the ancestors, who, as couples, as mother and father, engender their children as a blessing from God, and who teach their children the Torah.

But you might ask me whether or not the Herbrew really says "fathers." It does, and it does not. In Hebrew, as in Greek, the common word for "parents" is the plural of the word for "father." But it is clear from its constant use for parents of both genders that this is its meaning - parents. In the English of today, the word "fathers" cannot refer to parents of both genders.

Here is an example. In contemporary Hebrew, the term for a seniors home is beit avot. There is no attempt to segregate the seniors into "men's homes" and "women's homes". But this is the impression you might get if this term was translated as "house of fathers." It would be bizarre and meaningless. The phrase refers to "parents" - a shelter or home for parents, or elderly people of both sexes.

In fact, much of the time the word avot in Hebrew ought to have a gender inclusive translation in order to carry the meaning over from the Hebrew.

The TNIV uses "fathers" in the passage above, but the NRSV uses "ancestors" and this, in my opinion, is the best choice, the one that communicates the meaning of the original Hebrew the best.

Roman Catholic justice

I was reading about this in the newspaper this morning. I thought some writers were exaggerating but it appears not. The Vatican has placed ordaining women on the same level as abusing children. They won't turn perpetrators over to the civil government and they put down the ordination of women as immoral.

If I haven't got the story straight, Pam has blogged about it here.

Prodigal Thought on 1 Tim. 2

I know my readers will want to read this post by Scott on 1 Tim. 2:8-15. Scott treats verse 12 within the context of the entire passage and refers to the worship of Artemis in Ephesus as well. I too believe that this is an integral part of the context. He proposes that the author is writing about one woman in particular.

Therefore, from 1 Timothy 2:11-12, I would argue that Paul was not silencing all women for all time. Instead, he was silencing one particular woman who had been deceived. For why else would Paul switch from the plural to the singular? And Timothy would have known exactly whom Paul was talking about. But since the letter would have probably been read publicly, Paul refrained from mentioning her name, helping to pave a way for repentance and restoration for this woman.

However, he concedes that even if this is not the case, the instructions are still in response to a heresy. He concludes,

In the end, even if one does not accept that Paul is addressing one particular women in vs11-15a, one must at least recognise that Paul was addressing a particular situation in the Ephesian church where a particular heresy (or heresies) were being espoused, possibly from current Artemis worshipers or those who were newly converted Christians but had not yet come under solid teaching. And, thus, it is very obvious that Paul’s words are confronting these particular women and this specific situation in Ephesus.

Thus, I am still very convinced Paul is not laying down a command for all time that women should remain silent and never exercise authority over men. And, by no means is this founded in the creation account. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul is addressing part of the wrong teaching that was coming forth in Ephesus, reminding them in vs13-14 of what really took place: 1) who was created first and 2) who was actually deceived. But none of this should be seen as a foundation to the gospel for all time that women must remain silent and not exercise authority over men. The new creation has come!

Scott has written in response to a post by TC which brings up the importance of the role of women in the church.

My only quibble, a minor one, is that Scott appears to assume that autentein means "to exercise authority." This is widely held misconception, but in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was one possible meaning of the word. It is a kind of urban legend, and an instrument of deceit, a ploy of Satan, an impertinence of man, wishful thinking on the part of the immature - whatever you want to call it.

But "to exercise authority" is not a meaning of authentein found in antiquity. I have put this challenge out on the blog, and no one has offered this evidence.

Common English Bible blog

The Common English Bible has a blog. Here are some verses compared to the NIV and the NRSV. Genesis and Matthew are available to download.

Comparing the ESV and NRSV

Here are three Bible translation charts. The first one is found all over the internet and clearly displays the ESV as more literal than the King James Version, while the RSV and NRSV are = less literal than the KJV. I am not sure where this chart originated.

The second chart is from Parchment and Pen. The NRSV is not found in this chart but the ESV is considered less literal than the KJV.

The third chart is a display of a software comparison of several Bible translations. It is worth noting that the ESV and the NRSV, which feature so far apart on other charts, are actually very close together. What I am wondering is if the first two charts are based on any evidence or analysis, or are just free hand sketches of what someone thinks is so.

Does submission lead to sanctification?

The discussion on gender continues. On this post Dave comments,

Kristen and Tim,

To take the slavery example Kristen gives.

Even if you have a wonderful owner isn't slavery still abuse? At the end of the day you are not free, you are not equal. In other words you cannot treat a slave so well that it is not abuse to be a slave.

So as far as I can see it would be true to say "Slavery is abuse. Period".

Should patriarchy really be different? Yes, there seem to be many patriarchal marriages where people are happy but isn't the system of patriarchy itself abuse as slavery is?

For some might the lack of awareness that they are not equal and not free be a sign of abuse?

I don't want to make the jump that all patriarchal marriages are abusive in terms of physical abuse. But equally I do want to say

a) physical, spiritual, emotional abuse is more common in patriarchal marriages.

b)if you are not free to be equal then isn't that a form of abuse? ("image of God abuse"?)

A female commenter on this post admits that submission is difficult, but offers the following justification,

As a woman and wife I often find this command of submission difficult but I believe that God’s word is inerrant, His ways are best, and that obedience to the biblical design of complimentarianism leads to great blessing and sanctification. We have only to look at the culture around us to see that egalitarianism and complemegalitarianism are flawed and ineffective.

My response is that all cultures throughout history have been flawed and ineffective. Women are better off today than ever before. Just because we are not aware of the many women in the 19th century, and throughout history, who remained single all their life, who became prostitutes, who lived in debtors prison, who were raped by husbands and strangers - just because our great novels do not often celebrate their lives - does not mean that they did not exist.

Egalitarianism offers women the chance to earn a living, save for old age, support their children and basically contribute to the well-being of their family when difficult circumstances arise.

If submission brings sanctification and blessing just because it is difficult, I think one could arrange to get cancer or some other suffering of that sort. I do not see the need for the soul-suffering that a life of inequality has to offer. Why would men want to enforce this on their wives anyway? It seems a perverse arrangment to demand of a wife something one knows is difficult and what one has no intention of living with oneself. Women already have to bear children. Isn't that enough?

Storied Theology on women

Daniel continues to write about the role of women - as equals in Plotting Women into the Gospel Story.