tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post111957824731594157..comments2023-10-20T07:28:50.948-07:00Comments on Better Bibles Blog: ESV and TNIV gender language: my POVWayne Lemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119723303651394492005-06-25T11:15:00.000-07:002005-06-25T11:15:00.000-07:00Phil, let me add one more thing which may be even ...Phil, let me add one more thing which may be even more important than what I said in my preceding response to you. I think I referred to this in my original post, but it bears repeating many times:<BR/><BR/>As far as I know, from my study of both the ESV and TNIV, you will <B><I>not</I></B> learn or teach any incorrect doctrine from either version. I think even the teachings about how men and women are to relate to each other in marriage and in the church are clear in both versions.<BR/><BR/>Both the ESV and TNIV retain all masculine references to God and to all other male referents in the Bible.<BR/><BR/><B><I>IF</I></B> you are someone who prefers to use the English pronoun "he" as the generic singular, to fill in the blanks in a verse such as Rev. 3:20:<BR/><BR/>"Behold, I stand at the door and knock and if anyone opens the door I will come into ______ and I will eat with ____ and ______ with me."<BR/><BR/>then you would do better to use the ESV. If you most naturally fill in the blanks in that verse with the singular "they," then you may prefer to use the TNIV.<BR/><BR/>This test would not, of course, be the only factor to determine which version you would use, but this verse has been held up as a key verse in the debate over what kind of language is most appropriate to use in an English Bible translation for today's English speakers.<BR/><BR/>If I have misspoken about teaching differences between the two verses, I invite others to correct me. I welcome correction.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119722281686009592005-06-25T10:58:00.000-07:002005-06-25T10:58:00.000-07:00Phil commented:"So, Wayne, I read your post above ...Phil commented:<BR/><BR/>"So, Wayne, I read your post above and you know where I am on the ESV, but as I read your post on this gender neutral or inclusive thing, I question that if this was all so clear and straightforward, why is it then that so many scholars, translators and theologians cannot agree on this? I mean there are a lot of those who seemingly would take issue with what you stated."<BR/><BR/>Phil, the problem is, as I tried to state in my post, that it is not all clear and straightforward. To some people it is, but some of them take one side and some take the other side, and, logically, both cannot be right, no matter how straightforward and clear it is to them.<BR/><BR/>We are left, as I tried to state in my post, in the same position as we are when we disagree about whether or not babies should be baptized in the church, whether or not there is going to be a literal, future 1,000 year millennium, whether Calvinist or Arminian doctrine is closer to biblical truth, etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>Yes, we can listen to the scholars. We can carefully read things which have thoroughly described the various positions. We can think about how much both sides actually do have in common (my points 1-4). We can pray. We may never come to complete certainty, although we may be able to come to sufficient certainty to be able to live contently with one of the positions, just as many of us have done so about infant baptism, etc.<BR/><BR/>The church has always had its debates. They are not trivial. But God is strong and loves his church and enables it to survive, even when we who are going through the debates have little faith sometimes that we can ever resolve things enough to present a faithful, biblical witness to the world, in spite of our differences.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119647912554379482005-06-24T14:18:00.000-07:002005-06-24T14:18:00.000-07:00Michael asked: "Based upon your statement, which v...Michael asked: "Based upon your statement, which version(s) do you personally use for your own studies and devotional life?"<BR/><BR/>Michael, in light of the focus of this blog and my many statements about various versions, I've been thinking it might be helpful to answer that question in a blog post. Since you have asked it, now must be the time to do so.<BR/><BR/>Oh, thanks, also, for your kind words about my blog. I appreciate them. I really try to post with integrity and information that is helpful to others. It is important to me not to simply be negative, destroying the good work that others have done in English translation work, but to truly try to get across the point that we want to <B>help</B> in the process of improving English Bibles. By my work and nature I easily spot certain kinds of translation problems. I'm willing to share what I see with others.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119647543902272562005-06-24T14:12:00.000-07:002005-06-24T14:12:00.000-07:00Yes, D.P, I meant the latter, which you so nicely ...Yes, D.P, I meant the latter, which you so nicely definted as "fought among people who all hold to an orthodox, Nicene vision of Christian theology."Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119588825560962702005-06-23T21:53:00.000-07:002005-06-23T21:53:00.000-07:00Paul, the Bible is quite patriarchal. Women were n...Paul, the Bible is quite patriarchal. Women were not valued highly in the cultures in which either the Hebrew Bible or the Greek New Testament were written.<BR/><BR/>You have, IMO, corrected picked up on the highly masculine nature of the Psalms and Proverbs.<BR/><BR/>There are, of course, the exceptions which stand out. Deborah (the name of one of our daughters who has some of the leadership skills that biblical Deborah did) was a judge. Some women play key roles in the Hebrew Bible in the lineage of Jesus, including Sarah, Rebekah, Tamar, and Rahab. Esther was a Jewess heroine.<BR/><BR/>And in the New Testament Jesus treated women differently than most men did. But he did not turn all societal norms upside down doing so.<BR/><BR/>Paul honored the women who served with him in evangelism.<BR/><BR/>There are hints of a new order between men and women throughout the Bible. Paul stated it clearly in Gal. 3:28, yet even today we wonder at what all the implications of that verse are, especially in the light of other statements by Paul which place limits on the roles of women, at least for the congregations having difficulty to which he was writing.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in answer to your question, if a Bible translation disregards cultural differences mentioned between men and women, and biblical statements made to men and women in local congregations, by use of too generic language, we are missing some of what was originally said in the Bible. But in the discussion of the ESV and TNIV, specifically, we need to step back a few paces, and look as objectively as possible at the actual gender differences between these two translations. We will discover that there actually are very few. To my knowledge, there are no teaching statements about roles of men and women that are different between these two Bible versions. If I'm wrong on this, I'm sure there may be people reading this qualified enough to correct me--and I hope they do. The differences are more subtle (but not unimportant), having to do with whether Jesus said that peacemakers will be called the "sons of God" (only males) or whether the Greek <I>huioi</I> is to be translated generically as "children of God." The ESV takes the former approach and the TNIV the latter approach, as does the KJV. There is no consensus among biblical scholars as to which meaning sense of <I>huioi</I> is intended in the beatitudes. Both are possible. Both meanings are used in other parts of the Bible. Which one is most accurate in the beatitudes? I don't know if we will ever know, this side of heaven. I think we do the best we can, and when biblical scholarship is divided, we footnote to let readers know what the other option is.<BR/><BR/>I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing Bible users to understand how very patriarchal the cultures were when the Bible was written. The are also clear statements in the Bible for how women should be treated by men, and those ways are much better than the way women typically were treated. How many of us husbands love our wives so biblically that we are willing to sacrifice our lives for them, as Christ did for his bride, the church? I <B>think</B> I would. I'm pretty sure I would in a case of life or death. But in daily life I often put my own desires ahead of those of my wife, until her birthday comes along as it did yesterday, or until the Holy Spirit nudges me to get away from the desk for awhile and give my wife some more attention.<BR/><BR/>Enuf! I must sleep. You can read this at a whole different time of day where you are! I hope there is something of help and truth here. That is always my desire.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11875966.post-1119583783368513892005-06-23T20:29:00.000-07:002005-06-23T20:29:00.000-07:00Wayne, this is an awesome post. I felt something r...Wayne, this is an awesome post. I felt something reasonable and balanced needed to be said on this issue. And you've stepped up to the plate. I'mcertainly not qualified to speak on this issue.<BR/><BR/>I have some questions about gender inclusive translations which I hope you may help me to answer. When I read Proverbs or Psalms in translations like the RSV, they read as very gendered texts. They read as texts which were written in a highly patriarchal society where masculine domination was the norm. For example, in translations like the RSV many of the Psalm read as prayers written by men to men, and to a God largely conceived of in terms of masculine experience. Female perspectives seem to hardly get a look in. I really struggle with this element in the Bible, especially because I regard every part of the Bible as divinely inspired Scripture. A consistent gender-inclusive translation policy, as we find in the NRSV, appears to run the genuine risk of translating out what I see to be the implicit androcentrism in biblical books such as Proverbs and the Psalms.<BR/><BR/>I have two of questions. If androcentrism is indeed present in the Bible, should contemporary English readers be made aware of it as much as possible in translation? And do gender-inclusive renderings potentially hinder contemporary English readers from seeing this aspect of the biblical text, if indeed it is there?<BR/><BR/>I raise these questions, because as far as I'm aware in all the ink that's been spilled over gender-inclusive translation, nobody has tackled this issue directly.Paul Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786802640380693584noreply@blogger.com