head and submission poll results - post #5

The ninth statement in this poll is: "The head of an unmarried woman is her father." About one-third of the respondents voted that this is an explicit teaching of the Bible. I am not able to think of any part of the Bible which explicitly teaches this, but if I have missed any Bible passage which explicitly states that an unmarried woman has her father as her head please note that in a comment to this post.

The last statement in this poll is: "Church elders are the head of a congregation." Again, about one-third of the respondents voted that this is an explicit teaching of the Bible. I do not know of any part of the Bible which teaches headship for the elders of a congregation.

I realize now, as I have mentioned in post #4 of this series, that not everyone taking this poll has shared my understanding of what it means for something to be "explicitly taught" in the Bible. It is entirely possible that those who voted that fathers are heads of their unmarried daughters and church elders are heads of their congregations did so based on their understanding of the English word "head" as meaning 'leader'. It is true that elders of a congregation lead ("rule", "lead", "direct the affairs of") that congregation (1 Tim. 5:17). But an elder is not mentioned in the Bible as being a head (kephale) of a church.

When I created this poll, I intended "explicit teaching" about headship to require the occurrence of the Greek word kephale (which refers to the body part, head, and can have some metaphorical meanings which do not refer to the physical head) in a New Testament passage or its Hebrew equivalent in an Old Testament passage. I apologize for confusion that my lack of clarity on this may have caused poll respondents.

(UPDATED: thanks, Peter Kirk) There are four headship relations explicitly taught in the Bible that I am aware of. The first three are mentioned in 1 Cor. 11:3 in order:

1. Christ : every man (I assume that this refers to every believing man)
2. man (husband) : woman (wife)
3. God : Christ
4. Christ: church (Eph. 5:12)
   

Here are the ESV and TNIV renderings for 1 Cor. 11:3:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (ESV)

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (TNIV)

These two wordings are very close, although the ESV is less literal than the TNIV (yes, you read that right!) since it has "wife" instead of "woman" (Greek gune) and "husband" instead of "man" (Greek aner). I happen to believe that the ESV team has chosen the correct interpretation of the Greek words here, but it is an interpretation, nonetheless. Translation always consists of interpretation necessary to determine the meaning of the biblical text before it can be translated. What should be avoided is so-called "interpretive translation" which goes beyond the meaning of the biblical language texts as most biblical scholars understand it. (There are, however, paraphrases which do communicate the same meaning as the biblical language texts, so there are accurate paraphrases and inaccurate paraphrases.)

Each of the relations in 1 Cor. 11:3 is explicitly described with the Greek word kephale.

Eph. 5:23 repeats the first two of these kephale relationships:

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. (ESV)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (TNIV

Both the ESV and TNIV translate Greek aner here as "husband" and gune as "wife."

Sometimes people say that "The Bible teaches that the husband is the head of the home," as on this webpage. I have frequently heard ministers say that a man is the head of his home or the head of his family. If we want to refer to whether or not a man is explicitly mentioned as the kephale of his home or family, then such statements are technically not true, since kephale relationships are limited, as far as I know, to the three mentioned above in 1 Cor. 11:3.

I personally believe that some of the disagreements concerning understanding of headship and submission would be narrowed if more people who spoke or write on the topic would more carefully focus on what the Bible explicitly says in the biblical language texts. There would still be disagreements about what some of the Hebrew or Greek words mean, but there would, I believe, be fewer disagreements. And, I hope, that the discussions or debates would be less heated than they often are.

If we claim to be biblical Christians it would do us well to study what the Bible actually says. If we want to create theological or ideological systems from the disparate teachings of the Bible, then we need to stipulate that we are speaking from the viewpoint of a man-made (person-made?!) systematization of interpretations of Bible passages.

I often read claims by egalitarians or complementarians which cite Bible passages as proof texts, yet the form of argument is more logical or inferential or even speculative, at times, than it is based on what the Bible explicitly teaches. One of the keys to understanding biblical headship in the Bible is to see how closely teaching about headship is linked to the relationship between kephale ("head") and soma ("body"). I suspect that this is significant. We should not, therefore, attempt to extend headship teaching outside of the head-body relationships, as taught in 1 Cor. 11:3.

The job of a Bible translator must be narrowed focused to what the biblical language texts actually mean by what they say. We must have grace toward one another when we disagree about what the text means. When we have such disagreements it is important not to call someone else's translation based on good exegesis an "error". Biblical scholars will come to different exegetical conclusions, and the word "error" should be used extremely carefully when discussing such differences. And "error" must never be claimed when the issue is really just a difference of interpretation of what the biblical text means. None of us have the final answer on what each biblical passage means.

I hope that you have found something interesting, perhaps even helpful, in this series discussing the poll on headship and submission. Even though the poll was flawed in that I did not make clear enough what I meant by "explicit teaching", I hope that we have all learned something through this exercise. Thank you to each person who voted in this poll. I will soon remove it from the margin of this blog and move it to my Bible translation surveys webpage which has many of my previous polls.

Finally, I must express my gratitude to Prof. Sarah Sumner of Azusa Pacific University, whose book, Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership, and other writings challenge egalitarians, complementarians, those who may not indentify with either camp, and, in particular, me, to think more biblically ("explicitly" and precisely) about the issues dealt with in the poll and my discussion of the poll. I have blogged about Sarah's writings in the past:

• Heads, leaders, and submission in Ephesians 5
• Resolving the current battle for the Bible
• Paragraphing Ephesians 5
• Should kephale be translated "leader"
  

If you read Sarah's writings and my posts, you can spot Sarah's influence upon my thinking. I want to think more and more biblically, as does she.

Should kephale be translated "leader"?

Suzanne's latest post on her Bookshelf blog has a statement which will not please some:

(Headship refers to marriage not to behaviour in the assembly.)

In the debates over the roles women can have in the church and home some (many?) believe that women are to submit to the "headship" of men in the assembly (or church, if you prefer).

But that is not what the biblical texts say. Note this essentially literal rendering from the RSV:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (1 Cor. 11:3 RSV)

Some might call translation of the Greek word aner as "husband", rather than "man", interpretive translation, but aner often does mean 'husband' in Greek, especially when it is juxtaposed to gune ('woman' or 'wife') as it is in 1 Cor. 11:3.

In Ephesians 5:22-24 Paul clarifies whether aner in 1 Cor. 11:3 refers to a certain man, any man, or a husband:

22. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
24. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (ESV)

The head of a woman is not any man. It is not a group of men, such as elders of a church. The head of a married woman is her husband. This is what Eph. 5:23 says. Dr. Sarah Sumner, who follows the biblical texts closely, makes the same point in her recent book, Men and Woman in the Church. That point is translated clearly in the RSV and several other English versions.

When the Bible teaches about headship, it is probably best to translate Greek kephale directly as "head." None of us knows precisely what kephale meant with all its connotations, allusions, and additional teaching that it can trigger. Clearly there is something special about the relationship between a biblical "head" and the group or person that submits to it. We must not go beyond what the Bible says about headship and import (eisegete) our own ideas about it, extending what the biblical text actually says to teachings about leadership roles in the church. They are two separate issues and accurate Bible translations carefully distinguish the two.

Adequate Bible versions should communicate in translation as much as, and no more than, what the biblical texts say and what they mean by what they say.

The theological (in)significance of male-representative language

I am repeating here for a wider audience something which I wrote in a comment on a posting on Gerald Hiestand's iustificare blog.

Now for a more general look at this posting. Thank you, Gerald, for your kind words acknowledging how I have helped you to understand better the arguments for gender-inclusive translations.

But it seems that in this posting you are confusing characteristics of the Greek and Hebrew language, such as that male-oriented terms are generally used to refer to mixed groups, with the teaching of the Word of God. The old theories that the original languages of the Bible are special divine dialects has now been thoroughly discredited: biblical Hebrew and Greek are basically the normal languages of the peoples who spoke them. When someone merely says what they are forced to say by the structure of the language, they are conveying no information; for example, if I say "two words", the -s on "words" conveys no new information because the structure of the language requires it to be present. Similarly, when the biblical authors use male-representative language (if I grant for the moment that that is what we find in the Bible) in Greek and Hebrew, they do so because that is what the structure of those languages requires them to do, and therefore by doing so they cannot be conveying any teaching, anything of theological significance.

Therefore I would totally reject your "surely the use of a typically male term to denote both sexes at least implies male headship". If this use is part of the language, as we can see that it is, it cannot be part of the author's specific teaching. Now I accept that in some sense the Bible does teach "male headship" (but see my previous comment about the meaning of κεφαλή kephalē), but that teaching, and the typological link to the "headship" of God over Christ, is based on explicit teaching e.g. in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (whatever that verse means), and not on the characteristics of Greek and Hebrew of using male-representative language.

The implication of this is that there can be no theological significance in the use of male-representative language in the Bible, and therefore, by your own argument, there is no need to preserve this kind of language in translations.

Here is a further comment which I made on the same posting:

Gerald wrote:

So it would matter little for my argument whether or not the various languages of the world have consistent grammatically gender terms as long as they had consistent “real-world” male/female terms (which I’m fairly certain they all do).

I wouldn't count on it, Gerald. Many languages do not have distinct pronouns for males and females, and are almost lacking in distinct male/female terms, e.g. they don't even distinguish "brother" and "sister" except by adding specific separate words "male" and "female". These are not only languages of peoples for whom gender distinctions are of little importance, for those which don't have gender marked pronouns include Persian, used in Iran with its society based on very strong male dominance. Of course these languages do have to have at least one pair of specific words "male" and "female", and I don't know of any which don't have distinct terms for "mother" and "father". But you certainly shouldn't assume that all languages make anything like the same consistent male/female distinctions as English and the biblical languages do.

By the way, I thought of an example of feminine-representative language which is Latin but used in English: persona non grata, which is used gender generically in English and presumably in the original Latin, although anyone who knows even a smattering of Latin will recognise this as grammatically feminine. Does this imply something about the theology of the Roman Catholic church? Surely not! I hope bringing up this example doesn't make me persona non grata!

For more on the meaning of κεφαλή kephalē, I will refer you now not to my earlier comment but to Suzanne McCarthy's posting about this on her Bookshelf blog.

Heads, you win!

The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has redesigned their website and I had to have a look. In one of their main features, Bruce Ware writes,

Gen. 2 - There are at least four features of this chapter which support the idea of male-headship (i.e., male God-given authority over female).

I have noticed that there has been some slippage in the last few years. It is now simply assumed that "head" means "authority". However, this is supported later in the article, both by quoting 1 Tim 2:12, where authentein is used, and 1 Cor. 11:10 where a woman has a "symbol of authority" on her head. So a misunderstood term, "headship" is supported by two completely obscure verses, one of which does not use a word meaning "authority" but rather "dominate" and the other which says a woman is to have "authority" on/over her own head.

It would all be so simple if we knew that "head" meant "authority". Others suggest it means "source". It can mean both, but it is not at all clear to me that one could prove one meaning over another, I won't try.

What bothers me is that Grudem claims in The Meaning Source Does Not Exist that "source" cannot be the meaning. That is a little odd because it exists in English, for example, "fountainhead" means "source" of the fountain. At the end of the article, a curious article, which I cannot explain, Grudem concludes,

This letter [by P. G. W. Glare] therefore seems to indicate that there is no "battle of the lexicons" over the meaning of kephalē, but that the authors and editors of all the lexicons for ancient Greek now agree (1) that the meaning "leader, chief, person in authority" clearly exists for kephalē, and (2) that the meaning "source" simply does not exist.

However, I know that Al Wolters wrote Grudem a letter explaining that the meaning "source" does exist in Greek lexicons in other languages. Sure enough, in the Magnien - Lacroix lexicon, the meaning "source" is found; and, curiously enough, the meaning "leader, chief, person in authority" or its equivalent, is not found. Does this mean that "head" means "person in authority" only for the English speaking world?

That's about it. How do you say "head of government" in French - chef du gouvernement. How about German, Regierungschef. "Chief" does come from caput meaning head in Latin, but it does not mean "head". But German has two words for head - kopf, meaning just the "head" and haupt meaning - "head" the "chief." So Luther chose haupt for 1 Cor. 11.

In French, you just don't have any wiggle room, so in 1 Cor. 11, there are two different words used - chef and tête.

Christ est le chef de tout homme, que l'homme est le chef de la femme, et que Dieu est le chef de Christ.

Tout homme qui prie ou qui prophétise, la tête couverte, déshonore son chef.

So, what we learn from this is that neither tête nor kopf, the common words for "head" in French and German can mean "the person in authority". They simply cannot. However, we do know that the translators in both languages thought that the Greek word meant "chief", or "the person in authority," so they did not translate this passage literally, but interpreted it in terms of authority. They inserted their own interpretation.

However, in the Grec-Français Magnien-Lacrois Lexicon, which is considered a very respectable lexicon, κεφαλη has absolutely no entry which mentions a "person in authority."

This is a strangely muddled situation. There is no clear correspondence between "head" and "person in authority" in Greek, other than the fact that certain translators, of the 16th century and later, thought there was. There is no evidence in this regard. In fact, κεφαλη is not the head of the Greek army, but a raiding party.

I have read Grudem's articles on κεφαλη but I won't bore you with the details. They are the usual list of one or two possibly relevant suggestions, and lists of citations which are too late to be useful. I haven't read the articles proving κεφαλη means "source". However, at this point, Grudem's articles have done a good job of convincing me that "source" is the more likely meaning. This is new for me!

I don't think I would want to change the way that κεφαλη is translated into English - the metaphor would be lost. However, the claim on Bruce Ware's part, that "headship" is "the person in authority" cannot be substantiated. It is dependent, I assume on Grudem's various studies, and as we know from Wolters letter to Grudem, that Grudem did not extend his study to materials outside of the English language. (Wolters is a fellow complementarian.)

I would feel happier if the CBMW would restrain from reposting their campaign against the TNIV, but that would be too much to hope for.

On a related note, inspired by the CBMW, I posted my own concerns regarding a return to a Biblical hierarchy. It may look like a spoof but it actually represents some of my serious research into the importance of the King James Bible to the cause of the divine right of kings. I have been dipping into the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes, a translator of the KJV. I may be having fun, but in a totally scholarly way.

Head and body, an organic unity

Since we don't have one of those fancy widget thingies that Iyov has put on his blog, I'll respond to a comment here with a new post.

Dru asks on this post,

If 'kephale', despite it's use twice in Judges 11 in what appears to be the way it is used in English, is only normally used in greek to mean a physical head, then what on earth can Paul be meaning when he uses it metaphorically in what appears to be a similar way to how the equivalent word for 'head' is used in Hebrew, English and various other languages?

If that metaphorical usage, which is so familiar in English that it is hardly a metaphor at all, did not work in Greek, what was he trying to say? If it really didn't work, would it have meant anything to his readers?

After all, in English, Christ being the skull or the cranium over men does not work.

Or was he thinking in Hebrew and translating so instantly that he didn't notice he was doing it? And for that matter, what was Paul's first language, and how was the word for 'head' used idiomatically in Aramaic?

'Head' used biologically has a fairly precise meaning. I would query whether it is legitimate to insist that 'head' when it is used idiomatically as a metaphor/cliche, must have a meaning that is quite as precise as its biological one.

What I think I am trying to say, is that I'd query whether it is possible to say that Paul does not mean by this metaphor something much like what we'd probably expect it to mean in English.

I'd also, though, query, and I hope Suzanne you'll agree with me on this, how much one should found doctrine on a metaphor.

We assume thought takes place in the head. Do you, or any other readers happen to know whether the ancients believed this?

First, I don't have the answer, I want to be clear on that. But I have been thinking about it. In the Septuagint kephale is used to translate r'osh in Judges 11 for Jephthah who is brought in to lead the tribe, and in 2 Sam 22:44, where David will be the "head of the heathen." There are almost 200 other instances where r'osh means leader of one's own people, and it is translated as archon, hegemon, archegos and chiliarch. Paul was familiar with the Septuagint. These words mean "leader" or "ruler."

Here is the catch. There seems to be an agreement between the early patriarchs, more recent complementarians and egalitarians, that in Eph. 5 the head forms an organic unity with the body. However, in the few examples that we have where kephale is used to translate r'osh, the leader has discontinuity with the people. David is not of the same people as the Gentiles. This, I believe, is what posed a problem for Chrysostom. He writes,

Is He then Head of the Gentile also? In no wise. For if we are the Body of Christ, and severally members thereof,1 Corinthians 12:27 and in this way He is our head, He cannot be the head of them who are not in the Body and rank not among the members. So that when he says, of every man, one must understand it of the believer.

Christ is called the Head of the Church. If I am to take nothing from what is human in the idea, why, I would know, is the expression used at all? On the other hand, if I understand all in that way, extreme absurdity will result. For the head is of like passions with the body and liable to the same things.

What then ought we to let go, and what to accept? We should let go these particulars which I have mentioned, but accept the notion of a perfect union, and the first principle; and not even these ideas absolutely, but here also we must form a notion, as we may by ourselves, of that which is too high for us and suitable to the Godhead: for both the union is surer and the beginning more honorable.

Therefore, I suggest that Paul is not using the very limited occurrences where kephale translates r'osh as background for his use of kephale. That does not mean that Paul does not have some notion of gender hierarchy. That is simply another question. But Chrsysostom thinks that Paul has another meaning here. Organic continuity is crucial.

Oddly, when some people report the results of the kephale study, they claim that "David as king of Israel is called the "head" of the people" thereby giving the impression that kephale is used to refer to the ruler of one's own people. There is actually no case of that. There is no example of the phrase "head of the people" using kephale in Greek. And yet this is cited as evidence.

The other example is, of course, in Philo, where King Philadelphus is called the "head" of the herd, the most illustrious of all the Ptolemies. Philadelphus is not actually called the "head of the nation" although, once again one finds this cited. Since the family of the Ptolemies includes Philadelphus' father, the meaning of "authority over" is not in view. I don't know how or if this occurrence relates to Paul's use.

So, simply put, there is no evidence for the use of kephale as the leader of one's own family, tribe, or nation before the epistles and this is an important point. If one wants to maintain the notion of perfect unity, then one has to appeal elsewhere for an idea of ruler or leader.

Naturally, one can say that the head makes the decisions. But, for the Greeks, there are many different psychological models. In the tripartite soul, reasoning takes place in the head, appetite in the belly, and the will is located in the thumos, or lungs. There is no point in equating "reason" and kephale since Christ is the logos of God, and God is the kephale of Christ. So we chase a wild goose on this one.

Some say that the head is where the semen is stored and there seems to be some evidence that the head is related to the idea of reproduction. The head is also the place where we eat, see, talk, hear, and so on. Does God provide this for Christ, and man for woman? Does man think for woman? It becomes rather complicated. Chrysostom does not go in that direction. Here is another passage from Cyril of Alexandria,

Therefore of our race he become first kephale, which is arche, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as kephale, which is arche, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our arche, which is kephale, has appeared as a human being: indeed, he, being by nature God, has a kephale, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. Because kephale means arche, He established the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the kephale of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as kephale the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a kephale accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

The point again is kinship, not headship. Imagine how radical it would be if we taught the "kinship" of man and not the headship of man. Personally, I believe Paul's concern was about the nature of Christ. God shares his nature with Christ, Christ with men, and man with woman. Not that women are a step further from God, but for the purpose of what Paul is trying to say, he uses this pattern. Woman is contingent on man, just as man is clearly contingent on woman - just in case women forgot that.

PS By "headship" I mean the definition in English, that man is the master of woman. That is not a likely meaning for the Greek word kephale.

Psalm 68: Pt.9: of one mind in an house

Iyov has provided access to Neale's commentary on Psalm 68 through a new widget(thingy) on his blog. This certainly puts an end to all dire predictions that blogs will disable people from reading extended texts. Cyberspace is now enabling us all to read one copy of the same book at the same time.

I will leave all Christological considerations aside, there is so much to comment on in this book I don't know where to begin, so I will restrict myself to a few lines. Neale comments on the Prayer Book version of the Psalter, which is significantly different from the King James tradition. It is descendant from the LXX, and Vulgate, so there are many alternate readings. The most fascinating one I have seen so far is this,

He is the Father of the fatherless, and defendeth the cause of widows: even God in his holy habitation.

He is the God that maketh men to be of one mind in a house, and bringeth the prisoners out of captivity: but letteth the runagates continue in scareness.

There is a completely logical explanation for how single men became "men of one mind". The LXX translated the Hebrew word which meant "only" or "solitary" as μονοτροπος, which can mean either "living alone" or "of one kind". The Vulgate translated it "of one manner" and so it became "of one mind".

And now, this is how Neale exegeted the concept of the "orphans". They are those who have left the world and joined Mother church.

The orphans are those, who born of their father the devil and of worldly desire, are now orphaned by abandoning their evil parents, and seeking a better FATHER, even God, and a tenderer Mother, His Church.

And those of one mind are those who are undivided by schism.

For by His inspiration the Prophets and Evangelists, and Apostles all teach the same great truth, all tend to the one goal, and His will it is that His church on earth should be at one, undivided by schisms and heresies, as it is written, "The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul."

So we see that Neale's concern as a high churchman, is to counter schism: Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and the Brethren are the bane of high churchmen. For him the fact that Christ is the head of the church means that the Church is our Mother and we should all belong to the One Church. That is, after all the meaning of the body. We are all one body in the church, if we remain in the church, that is. If we don't, we have left the body, and, in doing so, have left Christ.

This is the focus of the headship teaching is his day. But now some think that people may rightly attend whichever church they please, and worry only about conforming to the gender implications of headship, not all the other ones. The focus has shifted.

Without a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica, all I know about Neale is from wikipedia. I leave it to others to comment on the Gentile nature of this commentary.

Complementarian TNIV

Complementarians believe that men and women are of equal value, but complement each other with different God-appointed roles in the home and church. Are you a complementarian? Did you know that you can teach complementarianism from the TNIV, just as you can from another Bible version such as the ESV? This may surprise some complementarians who have attacked the TNIV, calling it a feminist Bible, a Bible for "feminazis", a Bible "soft" on biblical manhood and womanhood, a Bible that "neuters" masculinity, and boycotting it in Christian bookstores.

Let's examine what the TNIV actually says to see if it can be used to teach complementarianism. We'll compare what the TNIV says to the ESV. Some complementarians claim that the ESV promotes a biblical view of manhood and womanhood while the TNIV does not. Following are some key tenets of complementarianism, with Bible passages typically used to support them:

1. A husband is the head of his wife (Eph. 5:23):

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (TNIV)

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. (ESV)

The TNIV and ESV teach headship of the husband identically in Eph. 5:23.

In 1 Cor. 11:3 the TNIV actually translates about headship of a woman more strongly than does the ESV:

But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (TNIV)

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. (ESV)

The TNIV translates the Greek words gunaikos and aner of this verse as "woman" and "man," respectively. This is more literal and a broader (stronger) translation than the ESV which translates these Greek words as "wife" and "husband," respectively. The more restrictive translation of "[the head] of the wife is her husband" is footnoted in the TNIV but not found in the translated text itself.

2. A wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord (Eph. 5:22):

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (TNIV)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (ESV)

The TNIV and ESV teach the same thing about submission.

3. Woman is the glory of man (1 Cor. 11:7):

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (TNIV)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. (ESV)

The TNIV and ESV not only have identical teaching in this verse, but identical wordings of "but woman is the glory of man."

4. Women are to be silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34-35):

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (TNIV)

the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (ESV)

Again, the teaching is identical between the TNIV and ESV, and the wordings are nearly so. Neither is stronger than the other in what it states.

5. Women are not to exercise ecclesiastical authority over men or to teach men (1 Tim. 2:12):

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. (TNIV)

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

Again, the meaning of the translation wordings from these two versions is identical, as far as I can tell. I don't think a case can be made for any significant difference in meaning between the two wordings "assume authority" or "exercise authority."

The TNIV and ESV both make it clear that Jesus was a male, not some androgynous human. Both versions refer to God with masculine pronouns. Both versions retain the biblical language text wording of God the Father, rather than as generic God the Parent.

As far as I know, those who accuse the TNIV of being a feminist translation or being influenced by feminism cannot support that claim from how passages traditionally used to teach complementarianism are worded. The TNIV is an accurate translation and does not deserve the criticism it has received from its opponents. It does not deserve to be boycotted by Christian booksellers who seem to believe its critics rather than being Bereans (Acts 17:11) who study the Bible (or any translation of it) carefully for themselves to find out if what people claim about it are true or not.

Categories: TNIV, complementarian

Adrian Warnock: adamkind

Just as Adrian Warnock takes the big step to defacilitate comments on his blog, he finds himself incapable of expressing the essence of "humanity" in English. It is not good enough to call us "humans" so invents a neologism. Here is how it happened. First, Adrian quoted Mark Driscoll,

Mark took us to Genesis 1-3 in order to look at our first father, Adam. The race is named man because men rule humanity. We are made in the image of God.

Then Adrian was challenged on this in comments, which I abbreviate to spare you boredom but which have been saved on Peter's blog.

Charity said…
The race is named man because men rule humanity.

What is the basis for this argument?

18 November, 2007 17:20

Glennsp said…
That has been answered elsewhere many times Charity and as such why not go over all that material that already exists.

18 November, 2007 21:04

Suzanne McCarthy said…
Yes, I too would like to know how the word Adam, which God used to name the human race, means only the male, when in Numbers 31 the word “adam” is used to refer to a group of 32,000 women, exclusively women. At that point Bible translations have to translate Adam as “people”.

In fact, I suspect that Driscoll is quoting from Grudem who once stated that God named the human race Man in Gen. 5:2 and that all translations up until the 80’s had Man/man in this verse.

Adrian posted this comment and a couple more but then decided to end all further comments on his blog once and for all. It was just too stressful for him to decide what to post and what not to. However, on Dave Warnock's blog he was asked if he agreed with Mark on this statement. He responded,

I do not think that taken alone my notes of Driscoll's phrase expresses something clearly. He was speaking of the fact that adamkind was named after Adam.

So Adrian did recognize that there was a problem. Dave then asked,

The quote you included from Driscoll seems clear. Is the race called mankind (with male understanding of man) or humankind? When you say adamkind are you referring to humans or male humans? I appreciate your dilemma here. The Hebrew is clearly referring to all humans whereas complementarianism requires a faulty translation so that adam refers to men. Which side are you on? Scripture or Complementarianism? Can't be both.

I am puzzling over whether Driscoll's error here is related to the way the ESV has translated Gen. 5:1-2 in comparison with the way the text appears in a gender accurate translation.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man,^(A) he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man^[a] when they were created. ESV

This is the book of the lineage of Adam. On the day God created the human, in the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name humankind on the day they were created. Alter

After looking at these verses in a male gendered Bible and in a more literal and gender accurate translation, Alter's, I really don't see how the male gendered Bible can be solely responsible for Driscoll's misunderstanding. However, it is possible that Driscoll understood that only man is made in the image of God, and therefore, only men rule.

Or maybe Driscoll's confusion is due to this piece of writing,

God gave the human race a name that, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.

Does this make a difference? It does give a hint of male leadership, which God suggesting in choosing this name. It is significant that God did not call the human race "Woman."(I am speaking, of course, of Hebrew equivalents to these English words.)

Nor did he give the human race a name such as "humanity", which would have no male connotations and no connections with the man in distinction from the woman. Rather, he called the race "man." Raymond C. Ortlund rightly says, "God's naming of the race 'man' whispers male headship.
---
If the name man in English (as in Hebrew) did not suggest male leadership or headship in the human race, there would be no objection to using the word man to refer to the huamn race generally today. But it is precisely the hint of male leadership in the word that had led some people to object to this use of the word man and to attempt to substitute other terms instead. Yet it is that same hint of male leadership that makes this precisely the best translation of Gen. 1:27 and 5:2. *

I just thought I would post this insight into the translation philosophy of the ESV. I still can't decide if Driscoll's error is simply an idiosyncratic misreading of the text, or whether it is influenced by the translation he is using.

Update: I haven't done this justice without quoting Gen. 1:27

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
^(A) male and female he created them. ESV

And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them. Alter

It is significant that Alter does respond to Grudem's challenge to have God name the human race after the man, Adam, by simply calling Adam what he was, a "human."


Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood. 2002. W. Grudem. page 30

Crashing

I have been away for a bit on other blogs. First, I have tried to engage with a couple of complementarian blogs in a non-combattive way. Second, I have been reading some blogs of girlfriends so I could find some words to express how I feel.

Here is an example of what I found,

So when I read books like How Women Help Men Find God, I well up inside with so much frustration because I can not believe that an otherwise intelligent person would write in this way. Intellectuelle

What I am leading to is this: women are justified in being angry at the injustice, inconsideration, and just plain wrongness in probably 90% of the rhetoric touting itself as biblical womanhood and manhood, or any other mistreatment. Intellectuelle

Like an abused caged wild animal newly set free, most any movement made me flinch and anything that looked like a cage wall made me snarl and run. Compegal

The hardest part about the change wasn’t in making the change itself, but in grieving the loss of some hopes and dreams based upon the old beliefs, in knowing I had been a part of giving people “Christian” advice that wasn’t really Scriptural at all but was harmful, and in missed opportunities and other wrong choices based on the old beliefs. CBE blog

On Monday, I burnt four marriage books. I was very angry. The enemy was there, controlling, menacing, ever strong. I need to work on my reactions to the enemy’s victories, but it hurts so much! MRB

I have discussed this topic with several women and have been a little bit surprised by their reactions. It seems to me that women would be glad to know that the idea of submission precedes the fall. This shows us that the headship of the husband is not rooted in a punishment, and perhaps even an unfair punishment where woman was given the harsher penalty of having to submit, but is rooted in the very purpose and creation of mankind. Yet women have told me that they prefer to think that submission is a product of the Fall. Challies

I can't express how I feel myself - way over the top of what you read here - except to say that it is a pain that crashes in my head. The pain of knowing that the Bible was used to enslave me for being a woman. Since clearly this affects how I interact, I have resorted to borrowing the words of other women to help me express it here.

So, this is just to say that if you see me saying untoward things sometimes, it comes out of this kind of pain. I'm sorry. I know that when other people say things it comes out of their pain.

Fortunately this is mostly about Bible translation, and not about the rest of my life. My kids are great, my dog is healthy, my grass is cut, and I love my job. So, no, I am not having a nervous breakdown. But Bible translations being used to enslave women causes me pain, a great deal of pain.

Now, I will try to listen harder to other people and their issues.

Childbearing and male headship

I was surprised last week by the discussion about section heading in Ephesians 5 . I didn't realize to what extent the decision as to where to put the section heading was determined by the interpretive tradition of the translators. So I got to wondering exactly how thoroughly the belief in the unilateral submission of women has influenced the translation and interpretation of other passages - passages where submission does not appear on the surface. Maybe it is worth exploring the "submission of women" as an interpretive tradition.

So here is my question for today. Which Bible translation is closely associated with the teaching that childbearing is a figure of speech for the submission of women to male leadership? That should take about three point five seconds. And can you supply the quote?

church language and Bible translation

I wrote this essay a number of years ago. It deals with the issue of religious language, a dialect (jargon) of language which develops to deal with sacred matters, including church. While this topic is broader than the issue of vocabulary found in Bible translations, there is a clear relationship between the two kinds of vocabulary. For it is true that when we become comfortable with a specialized dialect of a language for matters pertaining to our religious beliefs and practices, it is also likely that we will feel that same sense of comfort if the Bible that we use contains that same language. But if we wish to reach a wider audience with the good news that God wants us to hear, then we need to be willing to look at the uniqueness of our own church language, or jargon. We need periodically to ask if our church dialect disenfranchises those who do not understand or speak our specialized religious language.

A good book on this topic is God Talk: The Triteness & Truth in Christian Clichés, by Randall J. VanderMey, InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Some webpages dealing with church language are:

• Are the topics relevant to anyone?
  
• Christian Cliches
  
• Glossary of Christian Terms
  
• Sacred Languages
  

A book promoting use of plain English is:

Plain English at Work : A Guide to Writing and Speaking, by Edward P., Jr. Bailey, and Larry Bailey

Understanding the advantages of using plain English has implications for the use (actually, dis-use) of church language.

I am a linguist. I naturally observe the way people speak. I enjoy watching how we use language to "do" things in life. I have been in church circles all my life. Many unchurched people are not familiar with our religious terms. They do not communicate well, if at all, to those who are not part of our own church groups. Some of our church language comes directly from the Bible, especially the KJV which has had such a strong influence on vocabulary within the English-speaking world for the past 450 and more years. There is nothing wrong with any of these terms. They are special to us who use them. But many of them are not naturally a part of the language of the wider population and we need to be sensitive to how well we communicate to that larger world when we speak. Here are some of the terms Christians use which are part of their religious dialect. I have organized the terms in four categories:

• Commonly used: used in varying degrees today by a large percentage of Christians
  
• Obsolescing: decreasing usage among the total Christian population
  
• Subdialect vocabulary: commonly used among various subgroups of the total Christian population
  
• Technical vocabulary: technical terms used by a fair number of lay Christians as well as theologians
  

Commonly used

abide
abundant
abundant mercies
accept Jesus
accept the Lord
ask Jesus into your heart
Amen!
atonement
atoning blood
authority
believe
believe in the Lord
believer
Bible-believing
bless
bless the food
blessed
blessing
blessings
blood of Christ
blood of Jesus
Body of Christ
born again
bountiful
burden
carnal
child of God
claim the blood
come into my heart
confess
confession
conformed
covered by the blood
crusade
decision
eternal
evangelical
evangelism
evangelistic
everlasting
exhortation
faith
fear of the Lord
feeding on the Word
fellowship
filled with the Spirit
for Thy sake
glorify
glorious
glory
gone to be with the Lord
grace
gracious
the Gospel
grace
growing in the Lord
hallelujah
head of the home
headship
heart
house of God
in Christ
in Jesus' name
in the Lord
in the Word
intercede
Jesus saves
joy of the Lord
led by the Spirit
journeying mercies
joy of the Lord
know the Lord
lift Jesus up
literal
living for the Lord
living in sin
look to God in prayer
love in the Lord
the lost
lost in sin
the Lord's day
majesty
mercy
mighty
moment of prayer
outpouring
outreach
righteousness
paraphrase
peace
perfect peace
plead
plead the blood
power
Praise the Lord!
pray to receive Christ
precious
profession
profession of faith
put it in the Lord's hands
the Rapture
received Christ
redeem
redemption
repent
revival
riches
saint
saved
the Savior
say grace
the Second Coming
separate
separated
separation
share
share the Word
sinners
soul
soul-winning
spirit
spiritual blessings
spiritual feast
spiritual food
spiritual fruit
spiritual growth
submission
submit
supreme
surrender
testify
testimony
the throne of grace
triumphant
under conviction
undertake for
unrepentant
unsaved
walking with the Lord
winning the lost
witness
the world
the Word
word of exhortation
Word of God
word of prayer
yield

Obsolescing

admonition
atonement
backslide
boundless
flesh
fornication
immortal
justified
sanctified
perish
predestined
repentance
reprobate
reverence
reverent
unceasing
unregenerate

Subdialect vocabulary

covenant
Covenanters
the Fathers
the filling
fundamental
the gifts
the indwelling
kingdom
kingdom work
lift our hands
lifting holy hands
liturgy
Messiah
mighty visitation
the Our Father
paper pope
prayer language
pray through
psalter
sacred tradition
second blessing
slain
slain in the Spirit
strangely moved
strangely warmed
visitation
word of prophecy

Technical vocabulary, including theological terms

amillenial
bibliolatry
Anabaptist
Arminianism
Arminian
Calvinism
Calvinist
complementarianism
complementarian
consubstantiation
dispensational
ecumenical
eisogesis
egalitarianism
egalitarian
elect
eschatology
evangelicalism
exegesis
fundamentalist
hermeneutics
immersion
immersionist
incarnate
inerrancy
inerrantist
interconfessional
justification
literalist
omnipotent
omnipresent
omniscient
ordinance
orthodox
orthodoxy
paedobaptists
postmillenial
predestination
premillenial
propitiation
reformed
sacrament
sacramentalism
sanctification
subordinationism
substitutionary atonement
synoptic
transubstantiation
Trinity
Wesleyan

What are other words you can think of, especially ones found in English Bibles, which do not communicate well to most English speakers?

Women Leaders: Prostatis

In the Greek New Testament women are leaders, deacons, and apostles, and rulers, tyrants and providers, and heads of their household. Most of this is clear in English, but not all.

Think of Phoebe, the patron. She is the προστάτις πολλῶν, the patron of many. 'Patron' is one acceptable way to translate this word. But what does the lexicon say, and what would a reader of Greek notice in this word?

Prostatis is listed in the Liddell Scott Lexicon only as the feminine form of the masculine prostates. So one can really only go by that meaning. What does it say?

1. one who stands before
a) front-rank man
b) leader, chief, administrator
2. president or presiding officer
3. one who stands before and protects, guardian, champion, patron
4. one who stands before a god, suppliant
5. prostate gland

So how did the NIV come to translate this as 'help'?

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me. Romans 16:1-2 NIV

When it is a man, let us call him the ruler and leader, but when it is a woman, let us call her a help, a great help to many. In English, some have derived the notion of the male leader and the female helper, but in Greek, they were the same word.

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. Rom. 16:1-2 TNIV

Kenneth Bailey remarks about prostatis,

Furthermore, Phoebe is called a prostatis over/to many. This word was applied to the leader of worship in a Graeco-Roman temple as well as to a governor, a chieftain, and the leader of a democracy.7 Dunn argues for patron/protector, or leader/ruler.8 A ninth century Arabic version translated this phrase, ‘qa’ ima ‘ala katherin wa ‘alayya’, in authority over many and over myself as well.

How best can a translation convey the association of prostatis with the act of ruling, leading or managing described in 1 Tim 5:14.

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; KJV.

This word 'rule' is from the same root as prostates.

This, in fact, is the only reference I can find in the Bible about a man ruling or leading the household. Of course, it meant his children and not his wife. I can't find the verse that says a man is to lead his wife. What I can find is the verse that says that a woman must rule the house.

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 2 Tim. 5:14 KJV.

In each case, the man, and then the woman, is to rule, lead, manage, guide the house. Nothing is said about one spouse leading the other. In fact, both men and women feature as leaders in the New Testament.

Here is another reference to leaders.

τοὺς πρώτους Acts 13:50 leading men
γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων Acts 17:4 leading women

Once again there has been a tradition of translating these as 'leading men' and 'prominent women', demonstrated in the NIV. There might have been a reticence to reveal to readers of English that women were leaders, and that Greek vocabulary placed women on par with men in terms of the words used to describe them.

The household codes, the headship passages, derived from customs and beliefs established and recorded in Greek, are the exception in the scriptures. These codes already existed in Greek, we know this, and Paul and Peter had to come to terms with them. They do not establish how women were generally refered to in the gospels or the rest of the New Testament.

For those sticklers who will search the NT for an exclusively male reference to leaders, I will mention that there is one reference to 'leading brothers' in Acts which has no parallel for women. In Acts 15, two leading men from among the brothers were sent with a letter to the Gentile believers, with a ruling on whether Gentile believers had to be circumcised and obey the law of Moses.

That is just the kind of issue that men can deal with among themselves. I don't think there are any women compaining that this letter was written and sent by men, leading men, as the Greek says.

In the meantime, I am still looking. In the gospels, in Acts and the epistles, outside of the household codes, when the Greek refers to real women, I have not found any distinct male and female roles. The supposed 'distinctions' between men and women do not appear in the story of the early church, at least not in the Greek.

On the contrary, women provide for the disciples financially, they lead their own households to Christ, they have churches in their house, they are apostles, (not among the 12, who represent the 12 tribes of Israel) they are prophets, teachers and deacons. They are real women.

Thanks to Michael Kruse for posting about Kenneth Bailey.

Mode of Communication II

On his own blog, Peter has completed his series on exegesis and the The Scholarly and Fundamentalist Approaches to the Bible. It is well worth reading. (I have just finished writing my own post in a rather half hearted way and all I can say is that I wish Peter's series were here, and my post were in the Antarctic where it deserves to be.)

I had intended to write about how the difference between speaking and writing contributes to Grudem's theories about the role of women in the church in Evangelical Feminism and Bibilical Truth. This is considered a scholarly book by Al Mohler and is recommended by many complementarians. I believe that at 864 pages long, it might be Grudem's longest book.

However, as is often the case, I stopped along the way and read again one of Grudem's earlier chapters. This is where he compares three different kinds of beliefs. The effeminate left (egalitarianism), the complementarian middle, and the violent right. Grudem writes on page 54 that egalitarians are characterized by:

mutual submission, often husband as wimp, and wife as usurper
men become unmasculine, unattractive to women,
women become unfeminine and unattractive to men
ambivalent towards sex
moving contrary to nature

With reference to the complementarian middle, on page 55 Grudem writes,

husband: loving, humble headship, wife: intelligent, joyful submission to husband
monogamous, equally fulfilling intercourse as the deepest expression of a great "mystery", equality and differences and unity,
positive delight in sex as a gift from God
natural desires fulfilled, man and women have a deep sense of acting as God made them to act

No data, no footnotes, no 'I wonder if egalitarians feel that way about themselves', no illustrations of masculine looking egalitarian women, no Kinsey report percentages. Without in any way writing about how I feel personally when I read this kind of book, I will do a quick communication commentary.

This reminds me of the Marlborough man ad and the kind of advertising which makes people think that if they use a certain product, it will make them more attractive to the opposite sex. If you smoke this cigarette you will be more masculine and attractive to women. If you use this perfume, or lipstick, you will attract more men. I think that the same thing is going on here. Grudem is saying, if you become a complementarian you will be more attractive to the opposite sex.

I have read blog reviews of this book by some complementarian women and one of them writes, "It is readable, enjoyable, and usable." What can I say? The table I quoted sets the tone, if you are a complementarian man or woman, you are sexy and attractive, if you are an egalitarian you are probably not.

I really was going to try and make this post funny and entertaining, and write a little more, but somewhere along the line I just didn't find it funny any more. I will try to critique another section of Grudem's book tomorrow.

Good Night.

ESV translators are not misogynists

Bible rage--a term used by D.A. Carson to characterize the virilent attacks upon the TNIV and its translators, questioning of their motives, calls to boycott TNIV sales, etc.--occurs when people who care about the Bible do not adequately talk to each other, or even listen to each other. One of the unbiblical, carnal aspects of Bible rage is attempting to divine the motives of those with whom we disagree. Those, including me, who have been grieved and angered by the tactics of TNIV opponents can easily give in to the temptation to fight back in kind. That, also, would be Bible rage.

It is likely that most, if not all, of the married ESV translators are loving husbands who do not lord it over their wives in an unbiblical way. Wayne Grudem, a highly visible member of the ESV translation team, and one of the most vocal critics of the TNIV, has lovingly sacrificed for his wife. And that, according to Eph. 5:23-25, is a defining characteristic of what it means for a man to be head of his wife:

For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (ESV)

Dr. Grudem taught at Trinity Seminary in Deerfield, Illinois, for many years. He had an important tenured position on the faculty. His wife increasingly struggled with a respiratory ailment which was exacerbated by the Illinois climate. Not too long ago Dr. Grudem sacrificed his well-established position at Trinity and moved to Arizona, so that his wife could be in a better climate for her illness. He now is on the faculty of a much smaller seminary in Arizona. Dr. Grudem sacrificed an important part of his own career for the sake of his wife. That is loving, sacrificial biblical headship.

I have also listened to sermons preached by Dr. Grudem. There is no hint of misogyny in what he teaches. I get no idea that he thinks of women as second-class citizens. Egalitarians can differ with Dr. Grudem on what roles are appropriate for a woman to have in the home and church, but it would be inappropriate for anyone to accuse, a priori, Dr. Grudem or any who believe strongly in divinely ordained complementary roles for women and men, of being misogynists, wife-beaters, etc.

I have wanted to post on this for some time. It is my desire that debates of any kind be conducted in a biblical way, graciously, lovingly listening well to each other, with sincere respect for each other, even while differing on some matters. One of my passions is that biblical teachings about interpersonal relationships and speech be especially followed when it involves the Bible that is at the heart of our faith, the faith shared by people who may have some differences in theology or ideology, but are all still orthodox in their beliefs.

Let us not accuse the TNIV translators of heresy, as some have done. They are not heretics, nor is their translation heretical. The TNIV translators seek to honor God through translating as accurately as possible. And let us not accuse TNIV opponents, several of whom produced the ESV, of being heretics, or women-haters, or anything else which might easily slip off our tongues but for which we have no proof.

Above all, in any discussions, but especially when debating how best to translate God's Holy Word, let us follow the instruction of Paul:

Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the head, that is, Christ. (TNIV)

or more idiomatically:

Instead, as we lovingly speak the truth, we will grow up completely in our relationship to Christ, who is the head. (GW)

UPDATE: Henry Neufeld has posted helpful comments which add nicely to mine. Henry has correctly read the spirit of my post. He goes on to point out what I perhaps should have in my post above, also, namely, that some of the translation wordings in the ESV are unfortunate and contribute to some unhealthy traditional views toward women. For instance, translation of adelphoi in Rom. 12:1 as "brothers" when almost all exegetes recognize that the word referred to both males and females, is an example where masculine words were retained which reinforce the idea of excluding women from the Bible (the ESV does footnote the meaning "brothers and sisters" but that accurate meaning should be in the text, not in a footnote). There are other examples like this in the ESV where masculine words were retained when probably most on the ESV team recognize that both women and men were referred to in the biblical text. This practice in the ESV isn't misogny, per se, but it definitely causes many females to feel excluded from versions such as the ESV where the Bible itself does not exclude them.

I stayed away from the translation deficiencies of the ESV in my post above, choosing only to address the issue of the spirit of our debates over Bible versions. I have addressed deficiencies of the ESV a number of other times in BBB posts, as well as in the ESV section of this blog and the ESV links webpage, but I can see that my post might allow readers to infer that the ESV is an acceptable translation. It is, IMO, not an acceptable translation, but I do not believe that I should question the motives of those who produced the ESV. I do believe that it is proper to question the ESV translation itself.

I have found many problem wordings in the ESV and likely will continue to do so. As an editor myself, the ESV strikes me as a translation that was rushed to publication without adequate care taken to be consistent to its own translation patterns. For instance, the ESV team only revised a few of the obsolescent inverted negatives of the RSV. From private communication I know that the ESV team was made aware before publication that the obsolete negatives should be more consistently revised, but for whatever reason they were left in the translation. With today's computerized search routines it would have taken only a few more minutes or at most, perhaps two or three hours, to have completed that revision job. Had the ESV team completed revising the negative word orders to standard English usage since 1750 A.D., the ESV would have less of a strange, out-dated sound to it.

Categories: ESV, misogyny

Translating kephale

What is the figurative meaning of the biblical metaphor kephale (denotationally 'head') and how best to translate it is the subject of intense debate, one that goes to the heart of differences between complementarians and egalitarians.

Yesterday Dave Barnhart of Vulgar Homiletics asked What is "Headship"? Regardless of what you believe the meaning of the metaphor kephale to be, it would be worth your while to read Dave's post at Vulgar Homiletics. Dave cites recent posts by BBB contributor Suzanne McCarthy on her blog Suzanne's Bookshelp.

Most Bible translators choose to translate the figurative language of the biblical metaphor kephale, literally. That is one interpretation. This interpretation typically leads to translation users assuming that the Bible's metaphor of "head" means the same as our English metaphor of head.

A few Bible translators translate the meaning of the biblical metaphor in a way that doesn't assume that our English metaphor of head has the same meaning as the biblical metaphor of head:

For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church (Eph. 5:23 TEV)

The husband provides leadership to his wife the way Christ does to his church (Eph. 5:23 The Message)

The man is the source of the woman just as the Anointed One is the source of the assembly. (Eph. 5:23 The Source)

And so we come to the, er, head, of one of the most pressing matters in current Bible translation debates. It is whether it is best to translate the biblical text, including its figurative language, as literally as possible, and leave to Bible teachers the task of explaining the meaning of the literal translations, or whether it is better to translate the meaning of the biblical text more directly, including translating figurative language with wordings which make the figurative meanings as accurate and clear as possible. Godly translators with sincere intentions take different sides in this important debate. There is room for both kinds of translation, IF we understand the value and limits of each. Many Bible teachers, professors, and pastors recommend using both literal and idiomatic translations for one's own Bible study. I'm in their camp.

Categories: Bible translation, figurative language, metaphor, kephale, literal translation

Resolving the current battle for the Bible

I posted somewhere recently, perhaps on this blog, that there have often been different battles for the Bible occurring every so many centuries or decades. During my lifetime I have been aware of at least three such battles. At the turn of the 20th century and into the 1950s a battle for the Bible occurred between theological "liberals" and "conservatives." That battle came to one of its climaxes after the publication of the RSV, which conservatives soundly denounced. People in my church background came close to calling the RSV a "communist Bible." There were people who wanted to burn copies of the RSV, and perhaps some did in other parts of the U.S.

In the 1960s and 1970s another battle for the Bible occurred over the issue of infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. The conservative side of that battle was described in the book titled The Battle For the Bible, by Harold Lindsell (1976). Intense, sometimes acrimonious, debate soccurred at many seminaries over whether or not the Bible could be trustworthy if it had any errors in it. As far as I know, the inerrancy debate did not has a significant effect on the publication of any English Bible version, unless perhaps the NASB resulted from that debate. For the last decade or so there has been another battle for the Bible which has consisted of two parts, which are related to each other:

1. A call for English Bible versions to be more conservative translationally. This call has come as a reaction to what have been viewed as excesses of the dynamic equivalent approach to Bible translation which started to effect English Bible translation in the 1960s. This call was encapsulated in the book by Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English (2003).
   
2. A call to retain grammatically masculine words in the Bible for reference to groups who many exegetes regard as being gender-inclusive, that is, as consisting of both females and males. This call was stated most forcefully in the book The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words, by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem [2003, with a revised edition, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy (2005)].

The battle over the RSV is largely forgotten today. Many conservative theologians teaching today used the RSV as their study Bible in seminary. Ironically, the ESV, which is intended by conservative theologians to redress both of the last two issues just described, used the RSV as its translation base. The RSV has been only lightly revised to create the ESV. Of course, those passages which have been viewed as being theologically "liberal" have been revised in the ESV to reflect a conservative point of view.

We do not hear too much anymore about the inerrancy battle, although that battle is still in the memories of some theologians today. But biblical scholars of both the inerrantist and errantist persuasions meet together for scholarly conferences such as the recently concluded SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) conference in Philadelphia which has more than 10,000 in attendance.

Biblical scholars have often found ways to agree to disagree or even sometimes to resolve some of their differences over various battles for the Bible which have occurred during the lifetime of the Bible. Will the current battle for the Bible as intense as it is today twenty years from now. Or will there be a different battle for the Bible at that time?

I wonder how resolution of some kind might be possible for the current battle for the Bible. I was struck by the wisdom expressed by Sarah Sumner in her recent article in Christianity today. Dr. Sumner is a female teaching pastor, a ministry role for women which is considered very improper by many, if not most, of those currently calling for the two points in the current battle for the Bible. Yet Dr. Sumner is calling for women, including herself, to repent and submit to the headship of their husbands, something which is of great importance to those calling for the two points in the current battle. Will their be some other voices who will be able to speak out in a way that common ground can be found in the current battle for the Bible?

Perhaps some resolution will come if those who believe in translating the Bible into the most natural linguistic forms of English can also heed the call for natural English Bibles to reflect the different literary genre of the Bible. Perhaps those who translate into more natural English can work harder to have the poetic books of the Bible sound more like poetry.

I suspect that there can also be common ground found exegetically with further study of the passages of the Bible which have been divisive in the current battle. As they exegete passages such as 1 Tim. 2, biblical scholars can work even more to come to consensus (or at least respect for each other's positions) about the meaning of a passage, meaning both within the original historical context of the church at Ephesus which Paul was writing to Timothy about, and implications for normative teaching for other times and cultures.

I am currently reading the book, Two Views on Women in Ministry (2001), which contains well written articles by a conservative male and female scholar from both the complementarian and egalitarian viewpoints. Perhaps some kind of common ground or resolution can be found, in a similar way, in the broader battle for the Bible in which this complementarian vs. egalitarian debate is occurring. I believe that one of the outcomes of cooperation in writing this book has probably been that an increasing number of conservative Bible scholars and theologians are recognizing that each side is committed to a high view of scripture and to a high view of marriage and the value of both women and men in the home as well as church.

It is my hope and prayer that the current battle for the Bible can end with some kind of peace that honors God and his written word, and, yes, can even result in better Bibles, Bibles which will be better because they reflect something good (and even godly) from each side in the current battle for the Bible.

Categories: Bible translation, complementarian, egalitarian, inerrancy, liberal, conservative, translation philosophy, dynamic equivalence, Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, Harold Lindsell, RSV, ESV

Burer responds

Michael Burer has responded here to my comments on Adrian's blog about the article which he wrote with Dan Wallace. Wallace, Daniel B. and Michael H. Burer. Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Romans 16:7. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. JBMW 6/2 (Fall 2001) 2.

Burer has responded to my original comment that the phrase from Psalm of Solomon

ἐν ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

was provided in a truncated quote only.

ἐπισήμῳ ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν

Read his retraction here and his suggestion that this reference is still useful.

Here is my comment posted on Adrian's blog,

I appreciate the fact that you have cleared up this point.

Certainly, I felt that the original truncated quote was inappropriate, especially since this particular quote is listed as a close parallel to Romans 16:7. By truncating the quote, it was made to appear closer than it is.

I still do not understand fully how this verse is a parallel to Romans 16:7. First, you originally wrote that it was a parallel to Romans 16:7 because 'people' are the referent of the adjective επισημος, but later you provide a translation for this phrase, εν επισημω 'in (a place) notorious/ visible'.

If, in fact, it is επισημος, and not επισημον, then it is an adjective refering to 'place' understood, and it is not an adjective refering to 'people', and therefore it is not by your criteria, a parallel.

I understand you to be saying here today that this verse is both a) ambiguous and b) not a "close parallel" to Romans 16:7. Perhaps I have misunderstood.

I was very surprised to read about the translation of Romans 16:7 proposed in your article since it directly counters the understanding of the early Greek speaking church fathers, and the understanding of the modern Greek Vamva version, translated by a native speaker of Greek.

I understand that native Greek speakers and, in fact, the entire translation tradition up until a few years ago, have understood this phrase to mean "among the apostles" but you introduce a very novel translation. When something this novel turns up, all evidence must stand up to scrutiny and it cannot be simply assumed.

Since this verse is not the close parallel that it was claimed to be, the discussion must rest on the sum of your other quotes.

However, I have questions of equivalent value regarding each of the quotes that you provide in your article. I do not feel that this issue is resolved.

My second comment is as follows,

I think that it is significant that Dr. Burer has not acknowedged the NETS translation of either Psalm of Solomon 2:6 or 17:30.

In fact, since this is a highly literal translation, I note with surprise that it is not mentioned and that Dr. Burer remarks that,"This is the way the standard translations render Ps. Sol. 17:6."

Is Dr. Burer claiming that the recent NETS translation is not 'standard'?

Given the NETS rendering 'with a mark among the nations' this verse can only be ambiguous at best, it cannot be used as supporting documention to disambiguate other ambiguous phrases.

Adrian himself opens the post with a comment that Romans 16:7 is used as a 'critical argument by egalitarians'. However, I would like to point out that we have not done this on our blog.

Contrary to what some people think, every post on this blog must promote accurate translation of the original text first, and let the chips fall where they may. My difficulty is that when certain scholars write a quantity of text with the express purpose of restricting women, their vision regarding the Greek text may be blurred.

On a further note, three Greek church fathers regard Andronicus and Junia as apostles, first Chrysostom,

Greet Andronicus and Junia . . . who are outstanding among the apostles” (Romans 16:7): To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle. (In ep. ad Romanos 31.2; PG 60.669-670)

then Theodoret (ca. 393 - 458), bishop of Cyrrhus,

Then to be called "of note" not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles. (Interpretatio in quatuordecim epistolas S Pauli 82.200)

and finally, John of Damascus, (ca. 675-ca749)

And to be called "apostles" is a great thing ... but to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is. (Commentary on Paul's Epistles 95.565)

There is no evidence among church fathers supporting Wallace and Burer's hypothesis.

Addendum: Dave Warnock gives a third party view of the action on Adrian's blog. He remarks,

Time and time again arguments against "male headship" are silently rejected, dismissed as irrelevant or (and in particular) subjected to ad hominen attacks. Two powerful examples are:

The way Suzanne McCarthy's arguments are treated in these threads. See Adrian's Blog: Wayne Grudem Replies to a Critic and Better Bibles Blog: Wayne Grudem: Bridgebuilder? (I referred to this in 42: Suzanne Superbly Summarises) and Speaker of Truth: Adrian Warnock censors those who find an error in Grudem's words. I believe that Suzanne did more work to carefully check Wayne Grudem's statements in this interview than anyone else. However, her arguments were deleted, mocked, dismissed and she was subjected to personal attack.

I want to thank Dave for recording this as there is no way that I can go to Adrian's site and protest this.

Addendum #2 Since I wrote this post Adrian has posted my comments on his blog, including my protest here,

For my part, I feel that I have stayed with telling the truth and quoting books. I feel that others who comment on this blog have said some very unpleasant things both about me and to me.

As I said, I don't, as a women, feel very comfortable here. Complementarian men and egalitarian men may be equal, but women are not. I feel very hurt by the way I have been treated.

Thank you, Adrian.

I think, for the most part, women, myself included, either protest too angrily, or put on a brave front. It is about time somone said out loud that "permanent subordination" is a very icky thought.

Is Adam our ruler?

In thinking about and reading the first few chapters of Genesis, in conjunction with 1 Cor. 15, I found myself surprised that we are "living beings" just like the animals. And yet we are to rule the animals. If, as some argue, naming the animals indicates dominion over them, and Adam names Eve, then does he have dominion over her? Is the relationship somehow comparable? Same but different? Does a man have dominion over his wife in the same way that people have dominion over animals?

I have to leave that for a bit and think again about Adam - this time as "head" of the human race. Does this make him ruler of mankind? Does Adam, the head of mankind, function as ruler of all his descendants?

Or are all Adam's descendants of the same flesh as him? Eve is certainly of the same flesh as Adam. She is from him, of the same species, and this is the basis for marriage, that the man and woman are of the same flesh, and become one flesh. They are not one single body, but they are in kinship, together they are of the same species.

So Adam and Eve have a kinship that they do not share with the animals. Adam recognizes Eve as being in kinship with him, having likeness with him. Together they have dominion over the animals whom they do not have kinship with. Nonetheless, animals are "living souls" and part of God's creation, but Adam is not the head of the animals, they do not share his flesh. They are not of him.

Adam, with Eve, is the ruler of the animals but not their head. He is the head of Eve but not her ruler. Until the curse, that is, then kinship is broken. If people do all the things that people do, and we know that the possible transgressions of one spouse against another are many, then one person may to try to rule the other, to create a false kinship, a domination.

Here is a passage from Cyril of Alexandria (died AD 444), De Recte Fide ad Pulch. 2.3, 268. He is struggling with describing how Christ is the head of man. He concludes that it means that Christ became human and took on kinship with man.

In this passage the Greek word ἀρχή is translated two different ways. In this first version it is translated as "source" and in the second, it is translated as "ruler". Which of these two versions makes sense? Then I will tell you who translated them. You are welcome to put your guesses in the comment section. Maybe it is obvious.

Therefore of our race he become first head, which is source, and was of the earth and earthy. Since Christ was named the second Adam, he has been placed as head, which is source, of those who through him have been formed anew unto him unto immortality through sanctification in the spirit. Therefore he himself our source, which is head, has appeared as a human being: indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. Because head means source, He established the truth for those who are wavering in their mind that man is the head of woman, for she was taken out of him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a “head” accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.


The one of the earth and dust has become to us the first head of the race, that is ruler: but since the second Adam has been named Christ, he was placed as head, that is ruler of those who through him are being transformed unto him into incorruption through sanctification by the Spirit. Therefore he on the one hand is our ruler, that is head, in so far as he has appeared as a man; indeed, he, being by nature God, has a head, the Father in heaven. For, being by nature God the Word, he has been begotten from Him. But that the head signifies the ruler, the fact that the husband is said to be the head of the wife confirms the sense for the truth of doubters: for she has been taken from him. Therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, the one having as head the Father in heaven, being God by nature, became for us a “head” accordingly because of his kinship according to the flesh.

My sense is that God is always our ruler. But only through Christ becoming human, did God, in Christ become our head, or the head of the human race. That is, "head" means to have kinship with, rather than to rule. We rule animals, but are not their head, God rules us but is not our head. God is the head of Christ because Christ is of the same substance as God. And woman is of the same substance as man. But only by Christ becoming human, could humans be of the same substance as Christ. To bridge the gulf between God and humans, Christ became human and thus our "head". This is how we can take on immortality ourselves, through Christ becoming our head.

This interpretation requires two things. First, I understand that "flesh" means "species" or "kind in Gen. and in 1 Cor. 15. Next, it is possible that there is little difference much of the time in the scriptures between ἀνηρ and ἀνθρωπος. Adam was the former head of mankind, the human race, and now Christ is the new head of the human race. It finally dawned on me how infrequently man, the male, and man, the human, are really distinguished in the Bible by a strict lexicography. Not so much. Christ is the new head of humanity, the true second Adam. He humbles himself and takes on a human form and human mortality. This is how he becomes our head. This is "headship."