WLBA 14: Conclusions

It is time to wrap up the Women's Literal Bible Assessment. With the help of "Michael" (blocked blogger profile) I have come up with a short list of potential translations for the verses in dispute. I still feel undecided about the details but here are the options.

Rom. 16:1 deacon(ess)/servant
Rom. 16:2 Patron(ess) benefactor
Rom. 16:7 outstanding/noted among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 power/authority/permission on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 domineer/usurp authority

The notes should only be for the purpose of indicating the possible interpretations fairly. They should not put forth interpretations that cannot be supported with evidence. They could recount for historic interest that a phrase has been interpreted in a certain way, but the notes should not recommend something which has no lexicon support since readers cannot be expected to check the lexicons every time. I know that readers should regard Bible notes as a secondary source and treat them with suspicion but I doubt that most people will do that. People can be very gullible.

Notes should not be used to parade out favourite teachings one way or another. Therefore, there would be no note suggesting Phoebe was an ordained minister, and likewise no note suggesting that childbearing is a symbol of the proper subordination of women. There should not be any notes saying that only men can be leaders - because the scriptures clearly say that there were leading women among the Greeks. And certainly no notes saying that only married women can be leaders! But maybe there should be a note that only married men can be leaders. I'll have to think about that one. No doubt Paul and John Stott would disagree.

I could not recommend a Bible with notes that went too far one way or the other. Better leave it all out.

WLBA 12: Junias

If you are finding this tedious think of my position. Here I am writing about something as unimaginative as the petty diminishment of women by Bible translators in my series on the Woman's Literal Bible Assessment, the WLBA. Fortunately I am resurrecting my personal blog to save myself from this dreariness. But sometimes a boring job just has to be done.

The Junia of Rom. 16:7 was recognized as Junia, a feminine name, in the printed versions of the Greek New Testament from the time of Erasmus until 1927. In that year the Nestle-Aland text accented the name Ἰουνιᾶν so it would be masculine in form, Junias. Since the name is in the accusative case in Greek text it appears as either masculine Ἰουνιᾶν or ᾿Ιουνίαν, feminine. That means that, of course, the early texts without accents did not indicate whether it was masculine or feminine. However, no male name Junias has been known in Greek.

From 1927 until 1998, the name had been accented as masculine and entered as a possible masculine name in some lexicons. Now there is a scholarly consensus that it is a feminine name.

I do not find it surprising or out of the way that any translation from 1927 until 1998 has Junias in the masculine. In fact, the Revised versions of 1881 also had Junias. It was certain from the notes of the various Bibles texts and commentaries and from meetings for the RV translation, the N-A 1927 and the lexicons, that the only reason that Junias as a masculine was suggested was because of the belief that a woman could not be an apostle.

Eldon Jay Epp notes that it was the belief that a woman could not be an apostle which influenced translations, lexicions and critical texts. He provides this example from the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible article, 1899, by A. C. Headlam,

There is little doubt as to whether the two [Andronicus and Junia(s)] are to be included among the apostles-probably they are ... In that case it is hardly likely that the name is feminine, although, curiously enough, Chrysostom does not consider the idea of a female apostle impossible.

About more recent translations Epp writes,

What may be more difficult to understand now is that such a socio-cultural environment, one imbued with a view of a limited role for women in the church, still could influence some editors of the Greek New Testament in the mid-1990's to the extent that they could impose the masculine form upon an unaccented Greek name (unaccented at least for the first several centuries of Christianity) (a) when all church writers of the first millenium of Christianity took the name as feminine; (b) when there was ample evidence that the name in question was a very common female name at the time of earliest Christianity; and (c) in face of the fact that the alleged masculine forms are nowhere attested in the Greco-Roman milieu. *

Epp quotes James G.D. Dunn who writes,

The assumption that it must be a male is a striking indictment of male presumption regarding the character and structure of earliest Christianity.**

If readers find fault in my concern that there is now male bias in some of the contemporary Bible translations, they need to be cognisant of the fact that male bias in Bible translation has a proven history; it is not a recently invented conspiracy theory. It did happen and it still happens.

I find it unremarkable that translations such as the RSV, NIV, NEB, NASB, and NRSV, those prior to 1998 have a male Junias. This is in accordance with the critical text, commentaries and lexicons. The translations themselves must be treated as derivative, only guilty in the second degree. But this is not a case of ambiguity, Junia was female.

About the Wallace - Burer hypothesis, that Junia was only "well-known to" the apostles, Epp comments on Belleville's analysis, which I recreated and writes,

So far, this leaves Burer and Wallace's "working hypothesis" somewhat in a shambles and with exceptionally minimal data.

Burer did write to me last month indicating the intent to respond to the critique by Belleville, Epp, Bauckham and points brought up here. In the meantime, this hypothesis is undefended.

It is crucial to realize that a conservative element today does not only want to keep women from being ordained, but they want to restrict the exercise of the very qualities of leadership to men, and relegate women to being receivers and responders or followers. Thus a female apostle is less acceptable now than in the days of Chrysostom and cannot be allowed to remain in the text.

*Epp, Eldon Jay. Junia, The First Woman Apostle. 2005. Augsburg Fortress.
**Dunn, James D.G. Romans 9-16. WBC 38. Dallas. Word, 1988.

WLBA 11: Authentein

I wish to wind up this discussion shortly so I will briefly look at why so many Bibles translate 1 Tim. 2:12 with "have/exercise authority".

The following Bibles contain "have/exercise/use authority." Tyndale, Coverdale, Darby, Rotherham, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, HSCB, NLT, NET, ISV and D-R.

Variants are as follows:

Vulgate - dominare

Gothic - fraujinon (herrschen uber)

Wycliffe - have lordship over

Luther - herr sein

Rheims 1582 - have dominion over

Daniel Mace - dictate

Young's Literal - rule

The lexicons have traditionally contained the following entries, "usurp authority," "domineer" "have power over". The BDAG 1979 entry is "have authority, domineer." However, there have been a number of recent studies done on this word which appears only once in the Greek scriptures, and at most twice in literature contemporary to the epistles. BDAG, 3rd ed., 2000, has "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, to dictate to."

The NET Bible note quotes the BDAG 3rd ed. and then translates this word as "exercise authority." Bibles which were translated before 2000 were consistent with the lexicon at that time. However, evidence does not support the meaning "have authority" and this meaning has been dropped from the lexicon. It seems that this meaning should not be used in a Bible translation today without evidence to support it. It is difficult to know to what extent a translation should include translations not supported by evidence or lexicons, even though they have a fair amount of tradition behind them.

I would suggest, however, that the balance of tradition is with "domineer" and the lexicons have come down on that side. There is very little contemporary evidence for this word but what little there is also supports the sense of "domineer". See Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 2004.

I particularly regret the translation of αυθεντεω with any phrase containing the word "authority". The Greek word is in no way related to "having authority" but rather relates to "using independent power."

For an interesting exercise I looked up the English word "authority" in Woodhouse's English-Greek Dictionary. Click on this image to enlarge it and read the results. αυθεντεω ia notable by its absence.

Although 1 Tim. 2:12, translated with "nor domineer over man" may well be compatible with a wide range of beliefs concerning women, one cannot derive from it the position of woman as being permanently "under male authority" or "not permitted by God to have any rightful authority or leadership role." One can imagine here the influence of Aristotle, who wrote unambiguously that woman is ακυρος - without authority.

As an aside I wonder if those who say that woman must be "under male authority" would not permit a woman to be the best in her field. Is she obliged to be second best to a man? May she never be the "authority"?

WLBA 10: The Geneva Bible Notes

Here are our five verses in the Geneva Bible with the relevant notes.

Rom. 16:1

Commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the Church of Cenchrea;

Rom. 16:2

for she hath given hospitality unto many, and to me also.

Rom. 16:7

Salute Andronicus and Junia my cousins and fellow prisoners, which are notable among the Apostles, and (*) were in (d) Christ before me.

(*) They were grafted in Christ by faith afore I was called, and were well esteemed of the Apostles, and of the Churches.
(d) Engrafted by faith.

The Geneva Bible notes indicate that Junia was only "esteemed of" the apostles. Luther believed that Junias was a male and translated the phrase with the German equivalent of "who were famous apostles." It is hard to believe that this discrepancy was not motivated by the belief that women could not be leaders. However, I find it interesting that the Puritans had this conviction but did not alter the actual translation of the phrase accordingly. They were willing to leave the Bible translation itself ambiguous and literal.

1 Cor. 11:10

10 (9) Therefore ought the woman to have (c) (*) power on her head, because of the (10) (♣) Angels.

(9) The conclusion: Women must be covered, to shew by this external sign their subjection. (c) A covering which is a token of subjection.
(*) Something to cover her head in sign of subjection. (10) What this meaneth, I do not yet understand.
(♣) To whom they also shew their dissolution, and not only to Christ.

The notes on this chapter are, taken as a whole, quite fascinating and I cannot do them justice here. It is enough to notice that these notes state that woman is one degree beneath man, and unequal, and that man is preeminent and superior. Two further remarks are of interest. One is that "mutual conjunction may be cherished." Women may not be equal but the conjunction of man with woman is still to be thought of in terms of affection.

A note on 1 Cor. 11:4 is as follows,

Every (b) man (*) praying or (♣) prophesying having anything on his head, (♠) dishonoreth his head. is as follows,

It appeareth that this was a politic law serving only for the circumstances of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.

I have found the notes on 1 Tim. 2: 12-15 to be the most enlightening.

12 (*) I permit not a woman to teach, (8) neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

(*) 1 Corinthians 14:34 .
(8) The first argument, why it is not lawful for women to teach in the Congregation, because by this means they should be placed above men, for they would be their masters; which is against God's ordinance.

14 And Adam was (♣) not (g) deceived, but the woman was deceived, and was in the (♠) transgression.

(*) Genesis 3:6 .
(10) Then because that after sin God enjoined the woman this punishment, for that the man was deceived by her.
(♣) The woman was first deceived, and so became the instrument of Satan to deceive the man; and though therefore God punisheth them with subjection and pain in their travel, yet if they be faithful and godly in their vocation, they shall be saved.

15 (11) Notwithstanding, through bearing of children she shall be saved, if (*) they continue in faith, and love, and holiness with modesty.

(11) He addeth a comfort by the way, that their subjection hindereth not, but that women may be saved as well as men, if they behave themselves in those burdens holily and modestly, with faith and charity.

This affords us more insight into the thinking of the various annotators of the Geneva Bible. First, there is the recognition that the central circumstance of a married woman's life is "travel" that is, travail or labour, which in the past meant a very real risk of dying. In these notes we see the logical conjunction of subjection and travail as a punishment and a burden.

So subjection is not a role that woman was created to fulfill, but a punishment for her sin in being deceived first. Although this is not explicitly stated in the notes, it may be worth considering whether the annotators had in mind that it is subjection to a husband in the fulfillment of marital duties which makes a woman vulnerable to childbearing, pain and possibly death. Subjection and pain are inextricably linked as a burden and a punishment.

And verse 15 is therefore the comfort that a woman receives, the reassurance that she will be saved if she bear herself in these burdens with modesty, faith and charity.

I could not help but reflect on the fact that the male annotators of this Bible enjoin women to be subject and accept their circumstances in life, to bear their punishment for the sin of Eve with forbearance. But the Puritans as a party ultimately stifled their own scruples regarding the subjection of men to a ruler. Some left for America, some captured and beheaded their king and eventually some revolted in a second mutiny against the monarchy and set up self-government. Subjection was not for man but for woman.

Update:

I leave behind the Bibles of the 16th and 17th century with regret but hope to return to them again later in a fresh context. From the study of these bibles, I learned that although there was a firm belief in the subjection of women, based on their inequality and lower degree, the text of the Bible itself was not altered.

The literal translation of Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 11:10 and 1 Tim. 2:12 was not doctored to line up with the belief in women's subjection.The Bishops', Geneva and King James Bible had a relatively similar translation for the women's verses. It is significant that the KJV, which became the enduring translation, was devoid of interpretive notes refering to women's subjection.

I found it of interest that the notes in the Geneva Bible reflect a very different view of childbearing than what is taught by some theologians today. For 1 Tim. 2:15, there was a reference to the burden and travail of childbearing as a punishment from God. How different this is than the view widely written about now, that childbearing saves women in that they are preserved from temptation by staying either under their husband's authority, or within the domestic sphere, or in submission to male leadership.

Frankly I find the notes of the Geneva Bible preferable. They demonstrate recognition of the suffering of women in childbirth and no more posit subjection of the female to the male as a circumstance of rejoicing than the subjection of citizens to a tyranical ruler.

The 1582 Rheims Bible, contributed by Iyov, follows the Latin Vulgate very closely and does not in any way show that the notes, although particularly prejudiced against women, have influenced the translation itself. Junia was "noble among the apostles," and the other phrases are likewise literal, "have power upon her head" and "nor to have dominion over the man".

I especially enjoyed the many delightful phrases refering to women as "great talkers of scripture and promoters of heresie," as well as the rule of repression of "the saucinesse of contentious ianglers."

WLBA 9: Geneva and Bishops'

Here are the verses relating to women in the Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible along with the KJV.

Rom. 16:1 Phoebe

minister Bishops' Bible
servant Geneva
servant KJV


Rom. 16:2

hath suckoured many Bishops'
given hospitality unto many Geneva
succourer of many KJV


Rom. 16:7 Junia

well taken among the apostles Bishops'
notable among the apostles Geneva
of note among the apostles KJV

1 Cor. 11:10 - all

have power on her head


1 Tim. 2:12 - all

usurp authoritie

The translations for 1 Cor. 11:10 and 1 Tim. 2:12 are constant, indicating a reluctance to offer an interpretive rendering in the text but a preference to reserve it for the marginal notes.

However, Rom. 16 is more interesting. In Rom. 16:1 the KJV opted for the Geneva version, in verse 2 for the Bishops' Bible. In verse 7, the KJV opted for an ambiguous reading.

It is interesting to see that both the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible did have some difficulty with Junia being an apostle. In light of this information, I feel that I should briefly reconsider the evidence for Junia being among the apostles. They are in the shortest summary form,

1. en plus the dative most commonly means "among" in Koine Greek
2. Crysostom, a native Greek speaker, considered Junia to be one of the apostles
3. The Latin Vulgate has "noble among the apostles"
4. The Greek Vamva versions reads unambiguously "among"
5. The Wallace - Burer hypothesis hangs by this thread,

P.Oxy. 1408 speaks of “the most important [places] of the nomes” (τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν). [Ed. - A “nome” was a province in Egypt.] In this text that which is ἐπίσημος is a part of the nome; the genitive is used to indicate this. On two other occasions this same idiom occurs, each time with a genitive modifier: τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] (“the most conspicuous places in the villages”) in P. Oxy. 2108 and τ[οῖς ἐπι]σήμοις τοῦ νομοῦ τόποις (“the well-known places of the nome”) in P. Oxy. 2705. In each of these instances, that which is ἐπίσημος is compared to its environment with a partitive genitive; it is a part of the entity to which it is being compared. This was a sufficiently common idiom (though occurring only these three times in the Oxyrhynchus papyri) that the editors conjecture the reading in the lacuna at P. Oxy. 3364, line 22: [τ]ῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ἀντίγραφον ἔν τε ταῖς π[όλεσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπισήμοις τῶν νομῶν τόποις ([Place] “the copy of the letter in the c[ities and in the public places of the nomes]”).

The phrase in P.Oxy. 1408 is governed by ἐν, and the word τόποις is not in the text of the papyrus (although the editors do suggest that its omission was a mistake on the part of the original author of the papyrus); this is a nice parallel to the text in Ps. Sol. 17:30. Thus there appeared to be an idiom in Hellenistic Greek which allowed the adjective ἐπίσημος when it referred to a place to stand alone, the noun τόπος being elided.

I would appreciate some help in ascertaining if I have made an error. However, the way I understand this argument is the following. This phrase τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τόποις τ[ῶ]ν κωμ[ῶν] occurs three times in Greek literature. In two cases it occurs in full and once it occurs as τοῖς ἐπισημοτάτοις τῶν νομῶν with τόποις omitted. The editor of this text considers that the omission is an error and the text is usually presented with τόποις inserted. There were other irregularities in this text to support the notion that the omission was a copyist's error.

However, Burer assserts that the idiom allows τόπος to be elided, in spite of the fact that there is only one instance of this in all Greek literature. This example is two and a half centuries after the text in Psalm of Solomon which Burer claims is a parallel. But we know that the idiom usually occured without the elision. The P Oxy. example is from a text composed in Greek and the example in Psalm of Solomon is a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic original two and a half centuries earlier. There has been no proposal for understanding the phrase from Psalm of Solomon as a translation of a Hebrew original.

The other problem is that any proof showing that using an adjective with a genitive is inclusive has no bearing on whether the adjective is inclusive or exclusive when it occurs with en plus dative. That is, proving that A is green does not prove that B is red.

I find the various convolutions necessary to follow Burer's argument to be the strongest argument in favour of Junia being one of the apostles. I do not wish to draw any other conclusions as to women in ministry from this verse but would suggest that an ambiguous text at best is the only fair way to deal with the Greek. I believe that this has been a stumbling block for many translators.

There was a disagreement, Junia was force to cross-dress for several centuries to resolve the difficulty, she has been recognized as female once again, now what?

WLBA 8: KJV conclusion

If you want to read something effusive about the language of the King James Bible then I recommend this short commentary on the Psalms by Kathleen Norris who writes about,

"the music of the language in the ear, the pleasurable mouth-feel of words spoken aloud."

I am more interested in the King James Bible as a shared document, a consensual text. This Bible was conceived in the reign of Elizabeth I, created during the reign of James I and came into general use during the Restoration period in England, the 166o's . It was not the Bible of Shakespeare or of the founding colonies of the United States.

The value of the King James Bibles as literature is established. But its acceptance may originally have more to do with what it was not - the Bishop's Bible on the one hand, or the Puritan's Geneva Bible on the other.

James commented,

Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other.

And resolved,

That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.

The new Bible was drafted by a committee of 47 men, from both Cambridge and Oxford, half of whom were of Puritan and half of Episcopal persuasion. It was technically a revision of the Bishops' Bible; the translators were handed out copies of the Bishops' Bible to write on and revise. Ecclesiastical words were to be followed and no marginal notes were to be included, except to explain the Hebrew or Greek words.

I find the fourth instruction to be of particular interest,

When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

The King James Bible is not a shared text by chance. A consensus was carefully created. The translators came from the two opposing camps, the highest scholars were consulted, the interpretive commentary was eliminated, and tradition was to be followed. There was no role for innovation or private interpretation.

The full set of instructions can be read here. Consensus was created through the choice of the translators, the process of translation, the ground rules which were laid down, and especially through the omission of the marginal notes. It was not by chance but by intent that this Bible became the standard translation of the scriptures for 4 centuries.

However, the King James Bible did not enjoy immediate success. It was intended to contribute to internal peace and nationbuilding in its own era. It was planned as an irenicon, a thing of peace. But the second decade of the 17th century led to the third and England was immersed in bloody combat culminating in the execution of Charles I. Cromwell's Bible was naturally the Geneva Bible, the text of the reformers.

It was only during the enforced uniformity of the Restoration under Charles II that the King James Bible became the accepted text. And the rest is history.

I would argue that although the King James Bible did not provide instant peace, it has nonetheless become a shared text because of the qualities invested in it by the strict instructions of the king.

We would do well to consider these qualities. A Bible should bring together scholars of different communities. It should exclude all notes except commentary on the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words. It should avoid innovation without consensus. If the translators know that there is no consensus on a particular translation then it should not be included. If there is an innovative translation that has the consensus of the scholarly community then this should be included with explanation and support.

Tradition does not prevent new meanings coming into the translation but provides the wording for an obscure original when there is no new consensus. By a carefully agreed upon process, a text could be created which would not surprise and cause undue consternation.

In a new translation today, I would look for agreement with the current lexicons and grammars, support by the most well recognized scholars, consensus across community boundaries and honouring tradition where new theories are not yet generally accepted. Above all interpretive translation would be largely excluded or well footnoted. Sadly, many new translations fall short of this.

WLBA 7: KJV Cont

I am taking my sweet time getting down to the point and writing a serious post about the KJV. In the meantime, another story from the woman's world of Suzanne. I work in a secular environment where it is fine to be Buddhist, atheist, etc. etc, also married, single, gay or transgendered. We even have stay at home mothers who come back once in a while to visit with former colleagues over lunch. There are incidently a few men, young and old.

At the end of a meeting this morning I was listening in on this conversation, between a man, first speaker, and a woman, second speaker.

"She's taking a week off to go east with her husband who has some job interviews."

"So we get a new consultant next year?"

"Looks like it."

"Is she looking for a job there too?"

"No, I don't think so. I truly doubt it."

"She isn't?"

"Um, she is, you know, um - 'great with child.'"

"Oh yeah, right - she's expecting - of course, now she can take some time off."

If you are a man, and you are at loss for words in a mixed environment, you can't go too far wrong if you quote the King James Bible. For some reason, this man stumbled over, "she's expecting,"but he had a fallback - from the KJV. In our secular workplace it passes without remark. It is a shared text.

Update:

In the interests of complete disclosure. I will admit that the man in this conversation is an older man and a Christian. He attends Gordon Fee's church. However, my point is this. He assumes that the staff, composed of Jewish, Catholic, atheist, etc. etc. will recognize his quote because they are all anglophone. Not that the others would quote the KJV themselves, or any biblical text. But they accept it.

However, I used to consider the KJV to be the text of a fundamentalist minority, rather than a shared text of the anglophone community.

Two other incidents this year have reinforced this. Our Jewish librarian spoke in a positive fashion of the KJV recently. On another occasion I observed a large banner in the headquarters of the municipal police, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Our city is the usual multicultural mix and considered a rather liberal environment as well. However, I am convinced that the KJV is the only Bible version which can pass without remark.

I am trying in ethnographers fashion, to recount incidents where the Bible is mentioned in a secular environment, without my suggesting it. This is what I observe. It is an alternative to putting out a poll or survey.

WLBA 5: the context

Before continuing with the King James Bible I want to address a literal and global understanding of the 5 verses I am using for this assessment explaining how I read them in context.

There are certainly different ways to interpret the following verses with respect to the role of women. I read these verses Rom. 16:1,2 and 7 along with 1 Cor. 11:10, 1 Tim. 2:12 and Eph. 5:21-33, and understand them as follows.

First, in the greater context women are servants of the church, hold many of the same offices men hold, are coworkers and help men out from their own resources and position. This is consistent with the role of women in Acts and the other epistles where women are leaders in their society, they host housechurches, and they bring their households to faith, they are prophets and apostles. People are addressed as singles, married couples, two women, two men and in groups.

From Eph. 5 we learn that a husband and wife are in a sacrifice - submission relationship. This is consistent with the physiological constraints placed on women through childbearing. Women are closely tied to the children and sacrifice physically for them. They are typically at this time physically and financially dependent on someone else for support, usually the father of the children. During the childbearing years, the husband and wife are in a provider-dependent relationship, just as the church is with Christ. The dependent should respect the provider and the provider must recognise the dependent, the wife, as being one with himself as the mother of his children. This is the only interpretation that "head" suggests to me.

In 1 Cor. 11:10 it is likely that women were expected to wear a head covering as was usual at the time. A head covering is symbolic of many different things and does not have a consistent and universal significance. Hence the queen may wear a hat for whatever reason she wishes. If a woman wore a veil it established her status in society. It is linguistically possible that εχουσια meant a symbol of authority such as a crown. There is, however, no evidence that the expression "having authority" ever meant to "have a symbol of being under authority." Although context may suggest which of two or three possible interpretations one should choose, it does not justify choosing a linguistically impossible interpretation.

Finally, 1 Tim. 2:12 does not mention "authority" as we understand it. It clearly says that a woman may not set herself up as an 'independent authority'. It is probably best to avoid using the word "authority" altogether and go with something like "dominate" as Jerome did.

Nowhere in any of these verses is it written that men have God-given authority over women. Neither does it say that a husband has the right to make decisions for his wife. Nor does it say that a husband is doing his wife a favour by making decisions for her. And yet this was recently preached and posted on the internet.

There was also a recent post by a woman who declared that she had decided to wear a hat to church from now on. This was praised by a man who declared that in his church women don't teach or exercise authority over men. In his church it is taught that in marriage women get to submit and men lay down their lives. He went on, positing the basic male - female dyad as one of godly authority and feminine embrace of submission.

But is the basic male - female dyad one of authority and submission in the scriptures, rather than one sacrifice and submission, love and respect? And is this dyad applicable to men and women regardless of whether they are married or not? Should an unmarried woman symbolize her submission to male authority?

On the other hand, if the dyad is one of sacrifice and submission, understood uniquely within a marriage, this then serves as a metaphor for understanding Christ and the church. It is not, however, a universal model for how men and women interact.

The scriptures are certainly using marriage and male and female differences to teach us something about God. But what they don't do is teach that all men and women are in a universal and permanent authority-submission relationship. It should not be a govenrment - citizen situation where all the men set up rules for all the women. And should marriage be defined as a ruler - subject relationship in any case?

I was shocked recently to read in an interview of an single adult Christian female that she sought "spriritual covering and protection" from Christian males. I find each and every suggestion that women are in a different relationship to men in the church than men are to men, to be highly sexualized and offensive. It is dangerous for women to seek authority, approval, protection and "covering" from men outside of either family relationships or professional capacity. Women can find what they need from other women. A woman can find a female lawyer, counsellor, and mentor, she doesn't need to think of men as necessary to her spritiual self-esteem, the authority in her life.

When will those who preach this nonsense wake up and realize that the Bible strictly teaches men and women to treat each other as siblings? This means treating each other as equals, not setting up boundaries and restrictions and lists for one class of humans, and certainly not teaching that being in submission to male leadership is going to further a woman's redemption!

Teenage girls need to be protected from this kind of teaching. It is an unmitigated evil in the Christian community that young females are not taught and modeled that they should resist the need for male sanction.

The verses relating to women should not serve as proof texts for male advantage, but be read within the context of the chapters and books in which they occur and in accordance with the narrative passages in scripture. Let's read what these verses say rather than what some translator wants us to think that they say.

Just in case you are wondering - what you see on this blog is the tip of an iceberg. Women write to me more than they comment. I read the blogs of other women, and they read what I am writing here. I listen to women and read books by women. A lot of what goes on in my posts on women is inspired by real women and written for real women.


At least I know that you know that I never suggest that men and women are the same.

Update: Dr. Mariottini blogs about pornography. I share his heartfelt concerns. I also experience any objectification of woman in the church as a form of pornography. The more men engage with women as equals the less they will treat them as objects. Putting women under male authority or male power is a form of evil.

If women feel they need to wear a head covering to ward off the lust of the angels that is fine with me, but to signal submission to male power in a blanket fashion encourages the wrong ideals.

The Fat Lady or WLBA 4

A few years ago our family spent a week in Malta staying above the Bay of St. Paul and wandering from the fossil beds of the pygmy rhinoceros to the prehistoric temples of Malta's famous fat ladies. But squeamish young teens were more interested in the Knights Hospitaller and the movie site for the Count of Monte Cristo.

The fat ladies of Malta are not grotesque but rather surreal and seductive. One does not recoil in revulsion from a foreign image of a woman equipped to feed a litter. They are mother and priestess - the goddess.

I am not advocating this view of women but suggest that it is the view prohibited by Paul. How much rather woman as sister and fellow, woman as coworker and benefactor, as a member of the family of believers.

I have to ask myself if it would not be too much for Bible translators to use a lexicon when they translate. They don't have to stick to it slavishly, but at least, for a mediating translation, they could try the lexicon entry and see if room could be made for it.

What on earth would be wrong with this?

A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to assume a stance of independent authority over a man. She must remain quiet.

Here is how the chapter begins.

First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

Even kings and 'those in authority' are to lead a quiet and godly life. Even the king cannot set himself up as an authority independent of God. Does this chapter teach that women cannot be one of those in authority? Not really, there is nothing to say that a woman cannot be ruler. (The word for king has a cognate word "queen". I believe queens are included in this generic.)

In fact, there is no connection between the words "those in authority" in verse 2 and the words similarly translated in verse 12. In verse 2 it says all those "in prominence". In verse 12 it says "assume a stance of independent authority." Different words - ὑπεροχη and αὐθεντεω.

A woman can be prominent - obviously Junia and Phoebe were. But they didn't set themselves up as fat lady goddesses. A woman should not set herself up as an independent authority nor assume an authority which belongs to God.

The rest of the chapter points out that woman was tempted and sinned. So, as I see it, men are human, and guess what - women are human too. Now we know.

A better Bible would try to reflect a wide spectrum of Greek vocabulary. It is wearisome to me to see the English phrase "have authority" or "those in authority" used to translate about 10 different Greek words.

The word authentein has been translated as dictate, dominate, exercize lordship over, rule, tell what to do, and usurp, assume, exercize and have authority. What are some suggestions for a literal and mediating translation for this word?

To be completely pedantic about the phrase in 1 Tim. 2:12, there is no contemporary example of authentein followed by a genitive to compare it with. The only other contemporary example of αυθεντεω is followed by προς and means "compel", according to Grudem, 2004, page 680.

Back to the King James soon.

PS Can someone tell me why the spirits are so diminutive. I have to use a magnifying glass to discriminate them.

WLBA 3: KJV

Wilba; the Woman's Literal Bible Assessment. I don't know why I accidently scored the King James Version as a 3 out of 4. It is definitely a 4 and is the only other Bible besides the TNIV to score 4 out of 4 on the Wilba. I knew that in my subconscious and once declared that if I had a Bible version of my own, it would be called the "Queen Jamie". But that is open to misinterpretation. Scratch that.

Rom. 16:1 servant KJV
Rom. 16:2 succourer
Rom. 16:7 of note among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 have power on the head
1 Tim. 2:12 usurp authority

To succour is "to assist or aid a person in danger or distress." "Succourer" translates the Greek word prostatis. I don't know what lexicon this is but, by following the Strong's numbers, something I don't do very often, at the NET Bible site I found prostatis defined as:

1) a woman set over others
2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources

This word is derived from proistemi which the NET Bible translates in the following way -"manage 2, leadership 1, managers 1, engage 1". It can also mean "to stand before in rank."

Just as it is difficult to interpret "have authority over" as "be under authority" so I find it difficult to intepret, "leading and caring for others" as "being in a subordinate role."

I think there is something rather lovely about the word "succourer" instead of "benefactor" or "patron". Did Paul need financial assistance and someone to believe in him, or did he need to be rescued from danger, and fed, and cared for and protected?

This is reminiscent of Psalm 46:1

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble

"Help" here is ezer, the same word which is used for Eve. So woman is supposed to provide strength and refuge. From Eve to Phoebe. This does not suggest an authoritarian hierarchy. Wife or sister, woman is not a subordinate assistant but an ally.

A Woman's Literal Bible Assessment 2

I shall label this series the WLBA for lack of better name. Here is installment #2.

Doug at Metacatholic has responded by suggesting that I do not cast a wide enough net. I am not ambitious enough. I must have a more expansive view. Whew.

But we have discussed already which translations do not have the Deuterocanon, and which have congregation or assembly instead of church – and, let us not forget that there are Bibles with and without bishops! There is also an ongoing lively, and let me add significant, exchange about how the Hebrew scriptures, (and believe me, I won’t get this right because now I am supposed to refer to the Tanakh) are translated.

The fact is that we have spent the better part of the last 18 months narrowing down the discussion. So you must explore our archives sometime. We have discussed gender language until I heartily wish that the Christian scriptures had been written in a language with 2 colours and 5 genders.

On a more sober note, I have been counseled not to focus too heavily on my own favourite interpretation, but to look for a meditating position. And Jeremy suggests that there is a difference between a translation which would be compatible with one’s position on women, and a translation from which one can derive one’s position on women.

My feeling is that the need to derive either male leadership or egalitarian leadership from the scriptures, is not spread out equally across the different groups or through the various periods of church history. It probably was not the predominant concern in 16th century England, nor is it now a pressing concern in the mainstream protestant churches. That is why I am focusing on the evangelical community. But, I open to thinking more about this.

The data I am using is contained in this post. I will keep it stored there and discuss one translation at a time for a while.

The TNIV

Ta da! I am sure that it is no surprise that the TNIV is top of the list. Here is what it looks like. I have scored it as 4 out of 4, giving 1 mark for Rom. 16:1 and 2 combined.

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom.16:7 - outstanding among
1 Cor. 11:10 - have authority over her own head
1 Tim. 2:12 - assume authority

Here are a few notes about the TNIV choices.

Rom. 16:1

Here the TNIV has deacon, which is a transliteration of the Greek diakonos. The NLT2 and the NRSV also have deacon. The RSV has deaconess. Although I originally felt that deaconess should not be considered as equivalent of deacon, this is a bit tricky, and I don’t know if it is worth spending more time on right now. Greek has one word for deacon and another word for deaconess, but here it says that Phoebe was a deacon.

However, the word could also mean servant, so it really depends on the context. I do believe that both sides could accept either servant or deacon here. There is no real mediating position, but certainly the role of deacon itself is open to discussion.

Rom. 16:2

To continue with Pheobe, in verse 2 she is called a “benefactor”. This is a true middle position if we consider the historic and literal alternatives. Prostatis has been translated as “leader”, “respected leader”, “defender”, “succourer”, “patron”, “benefactor”, “great help” and “helper”. I would position “benefactor” in the middle. The three contrasting senses of “leader”, “benefactor” and “help”, sufficiently cover the lexical range. However, “help” is itself somewhat ambiguous, so the BDAG has said, “a woman in a supportive role, benefactor, patron”. This word never means “help” as in “assistant”.

This verse is interesting because there is a bit of a play on words. Paul literally says “stand by Phoebe, because she has stood before many, also myself.” There are a variety of ways to take this, but it implies that she has helped Paul on her own initiative from a position of influence and wealth, and provided for or defended him in some way. She helped from out front; she wasn’t his ‘girl friday’. The male word prostatês can mean “front rank man”, “chief”, “ruler”, “guardian” or “protector”. In the LSJ the word used to describe Phoebe is simply listed as the female form of the above.

Now think of how watered down it sounds to call a chief or ruler a “helper”. Yes, there is a play on words and some translations couldn’t resist the quip – “help Pheobe because she has been a great help to many”, but I don’t think that does Phoebe justice. She championed Paul. The French L-M says that this word means “celle qui a la puissance de direction" - "la directrice”. The translation should reflect the meaning of the word in some way.

Rom. 16:7

Let’s move on to Rom. 16:7 and Junia. Andronicus and Junia are “outstanding among the apostles”. You really can’t get a closer lexical and grammatical equivalent – “distinguished”, “famous”, “remarkable”, “prominent”, literally “of exceptional quality” – take your pick. It seems to me that if Jerome was happy with Junia, we should be. And there is no one to stop people from adjusting the meaning of apostle accordingly. Afterall, women were prophets too, and there must be some way of dealing with that one.

1 Cor. 11:10

Another fascinating verse. The Greek “to have authority on the head” defies obvious interpretation. Either a woman has authority over her own head, or she has a symbol of her own authority on her head. To say that in this case “have authority over” really means “be under authority” just because it is a verse about women just isn’t going to wash.

There has not been one other example in Greek literature where this expression means to have a symbol on the head that a person is under someone else’s authority. No one has ever suggested that there is such an example in all Greek literature – to my knowledge. I hope people are reading and will bring up counter examples if there are any. I could have missed it, but there isn’t one in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I think that is significant.

So the TNIV translates 1 Cor. 11:10 as “have authority over her own head”. The TNIV adds the word “own” which is not in the Greek. However, this is to counteract against the many years where this verse has been interpreted as a woman being under someone else’s authority. Maybe she is, and maybe she isn’t, but this verse does not say. It says she “ought to have authority”. The TNIV has a footnote offering the alternative interpretation.

1 Tim. 2:12

The TNIV once again, with “assume authority” offers a mediating position midway between “dominate’, or “rule” and “have authority” or “exercise authority”. However, there is no evidence that this word meant “to have legitimate authority.” The older BDAG had that as one meaning, but in view of the evidence, it has now been changed to “assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate.” But the evidence suggests something much closer to “dominate” or “compel.” Once again, I have no thoughts on how to interpret this, I would just like to see a literal translation.

So, overall, the TNIV has “deacon”, “outstanding among the apostles”, and “to have authority on her own head” as very close formal equivalent translations. Then the choices of “benefactor” and “assume authority” represent a mediating position. The TNIV closely resembles the King James Version in Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 11:10 and 1 Tim. 2:12. Check for the KJV here.

More another day.

A Woman's Bible

I am not going to pretend that I am able to give a dispassionate review of a contemporary evangelical Bible. I can only present my point of view. I may sink myself in oblivion when reading the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Pagnini Psalter and Alter's David Story. I can allow myself to be lost in those texts and reflect on how God is revealed and humankind responds. I can become Mary and Martha and Michael and the psalmist.

But sometimes I experience the epistles as a series of proof texts. There are enough sermons and studies and papers which take one verse and through a series of supposed syllogisms decide the boundaries which shall restrict woman, and the role she shall play, always responder, never leader.

Therefore, the handful of verses which enable some to come to these conclusions must be separately plucked off the vine and tasted. Each Bible version must be able to defend its decision. Why stray from tradition, why provide an interpretation and not a literal rendering, and why choose this sense and not that one from an array provided in the lexicon?

So I simply decided to do it - to evaluate the different Bibles according to how they translate 5 verses concerning women. Rom. 16: 1 and 2 are rated as one verse, then Rom. 16:7, 1 Cor. 11:10, and 1 Tim. 2:12.

But aren't I simply driving in a wedge, opening the chasm further with this kind rhetoric? I think not. The chasm was there and widening. The preaching against the TNIV continues. The distrust is embedded.

In fact, I don't and haven't advocated any particular style or version. My major concern has always been that of intense regret that there seems to be no Bible that the evangelical Christian community can share. No Bible has replaced the King James Version in that respect. I find this incredible, but I believe it is so.

Dr. Grudem will not use the TNIV, not because of its gender language, but because of its translation of 1 Tim. 2:12; and others won't use the ESV for its undefended use of the Junia hypothesis.

I long for some kind of openness. I dream that there is some way that those on the opposing sides of this debate can resolve their differences and come together and agree on at least one common Bible.

I had always believed that it would have to be a literal Bible, close to formal equivalence, but I am not sure. It should either represent the traditional understanding, or have a note to explain why it departs from tradition. It should accord with the current accepted lexicons and grammars, and critical text. It should duly represent those things about which we have scholarly consensus. It should have nothing too controversial.

I am convinced that this is something that we can come together on.

Gender language itself no longer seems to me to be the critical factor in this debate. I note that Dr. Grudem allows his name to be associated with the NET Bible, and Dr. Packer warmly recommends the NLT2. Bibles with inclusive gender language include the NRSV, TNIV, NLT2, NET, CEV.

But Dr. Grudem raised the issue of 1 Tim. 2:12 and I think that shifts the focus. Dr. Grudem writes,

The TNIV in particular has changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church, and I would find it almost impossible to teach a Biblical “complementarian” view of the role of women in the church from the TNIV. It has gone further in supporting an evangelical feminist position than any other translation . . .

To take one example: in 1 Timothy 2:12 the TNIV adopts a highly suspect and novel translation that gives the egalitarian side everything they have wanted for years in a Bible translation. It reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man” (italics added). If churches adopt this translation, the debate over women's roles in the church will be over . .

I would like to examine this thesis and see if the TNIV has indeed changed the translation of many of the key passages regarding women in the church. Dr. Grudem writes "many" - and I can only think of 4 or 5. If I have missed any, I would appreciate a little prodding.

This series is also a response to frequent commenter, Glenn, who has asked me many times to interact more with Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, 2004. I'll try but I won't go into any long detail - unless asked, of course.

So, I shall blog about how each translation handles a few key verses. I hope we can then develop criteria on which we can agree, and establish what we think would be best translation of each verse, to bring about greater fellowship between Christians of different stripes.

Update: Metacatholic has a post on a related post here. Naming the books we have in common Different topic but same concept. How can we hold something in common?

Lunchroom chat and a Woman's Bible

Last year I mentioned a few conversations I have had at work over lunch. When the chat dies down, I will sometimes just turn to a colleague and ask her what Bible(s) she has used. Since I work in a public school with a staff from a mixed background, Catholic, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist, this can be interesting. So far, I have had some in depth conversations about the Good News Bible, and the King James Version, the only two which seem to be widely recognized.

Today I asked a colleague whom I knew to be an evangelical,

"What Bible do you use in your house church?"

"Oh, we all use something different - I don't know, well, you know, NRV and The Word."

I nodded sympathetically and waited.

"By Eugene Peterson."

"Oh yeah, the Message."

"Yeah, that's it. I have a Woman's Bible, maybe NRV, hmmm, NIV? It has all these little boxes, devotions, for women and all that. Oh, I love it."

"Not the TNIV?"

"How would I recognize that?"

"Well, if it had brothers and sisters in it."

"Oh, no, I don't mind something not being gender inclusive. You know the best Bible for the sheer poetry is the King James Bible. Yes, that is the best."

And I would have to agree. The King James version offers not only poetry but in places a more literal translation. I still stubbornly hold to the idea that the literal and non-interpretive style of the KJV serves women well. Other literal Bibles are also good for women. I was also familiar with the Young's literal translation. Maybe it is my familiarity with these translations that makes me so uneasy at some of the Bibles I start out to review here. I am simply taken by surprise!

Here is the question - which modern Bibles are closest to a traditional and literal interpretation for the following verses? I have provided the KJV, Young's literal version, the Emphasized Bible, Luther Bible, and Latin Vulgate for comparison. Is it just me, or are Bibles in this century more selectively interpretive in these verses.

Rom. 16:1

διάκονον

servant KJV
ministrant YLT
minister EB
im Dienste Luther
in ministerio Latin

Rom. 16:2

προστάτις

succourer KJV
leader YLT
defender EB
Beistand Luther
astitit Latin

Rom. 16:7

ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις

of note among the apostles KJV
Junias - of note among the apostles YLT
Junias - of note among the Apostle EB
Junias - berühmte Apostel Luther
nobiles in Apostolis Latin

1 Cor. 11:10

ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς

have power on her head KJV
[a token of] authority upon the head YLT
to have permission EB
eine Macht auf dem Haupt haben Luther
potestatem habere supra caput Latin

1 Tim. 2:12

αὐθεντεῖν

to usurp authority KJV
rule YLT
have authority over a man EB
daß sie des Mannes Herr sei Luther
dominari Latin

I don't think readers realize that when I noticed that the NET notes didn't mention "leader" for προστάτις, I was genuinely surprised because we used the Young's Literal Translation as a reference Bible when I was young. Some may talk about my having a "preferred" interpretation but I am displaying legitimate concern when a traditional and literal understanding is not even referenced in notes.

But I want to ask which modern Bible would be a candidate for the most traditional and literal translation with regards to these verses? Which ones are the farthest removed from tradition? I have only checked a handful so far. Believe it or not!

Update:

I'm going to score these Bibles out of 4, counting Rom. 16: 1 and 2 together. If we look at the accepted text base and lexicons which are contemporary with these Bibles, they would all score 3 out of 4 for being literal.

Young's Literal Translation - 2 1/2 out of 4,
Emphasized Bible - 2 out of 4,
King James Version - 3 out 4,
Luther - 2 out of 4,
Vulgate - 3 out of 4


ESV 2001 - 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - patron
Rom.16:7 - well known to
1 Cor. 11:10 - a symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority

TNIV 2001 - 4 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom.16:7 - outstanding among
1 Cor. 11:10 - have authority over her own head
1 Tim. 2:12 - assume authority

HCSB 1999 - 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom.16:7 - outstanding among
1 Cor. 11:10 - [a symbol of] authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

NET - 1996 - 2005, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - great help
Rom.16:7 - well known to
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority

NLT 1996 - 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - helpful
Rom.16:7 - respected among
1 Cor. 11:10 - wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

CEV 1995 - 3 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - leader
Rom. 16:2 - respected leader
Rom.16:7 - Junias (male) highly respected by
1 Cor. 11:10 - sign of her authority
1 Tim. 2:12 - tell men what to do

NRSV - 1989, 2 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deacon
Rom. 16:2 - benefactor
Rom. 16:7 - prominent among
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority over a man

NIV - 1978 - 1984, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - great help
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority over a man

NASB - 1960 - 1995, 0 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - helper
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - symbol of authority on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - exercise authority over a man

RSV 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - deaconess
Rom. 16:2 - helper
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - veil on her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

ISV - 2003 - 1 out of 4

Rom. 16:1 - servant
Rom. 16:2 - has assisted
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - authority over her own head
1 Tim. 2:12 - have authority

D-R

Rom. 16:1 - in the ministry
Rom. 16:2 - has assisted
Rom. 16:7 - Junias among the apostles
1 Cor. 11:10 - a power over her head
1 Tim. 2:12 - use authority over the man