25,000+ Note ESV Study Bible announced: guess who is contributing!

Here is the list. I note a number of friends on the list, both established and up and coming scholars. You can be sure that whatever the notes contain, they will be the focus of a lot of attention for years to come.

Comments

[Peter Kirk]

Not many surprises here. But good to see 57 out of 118 doctorates listed, very nearly 50% and more than from the USA, are from UK institutions. (Yes, I know some names are counted twice.)

[J. K. Gayle]

What? More than 100 men but not 1 woman? No, there will be no bias. (Or did I miss some one very very influential?)

[JohnFH]

It didn't take you long to notice, did it, Kurk?

Quite a number of the contributors to the ESV Study Bible teach at institutions that include women on the faculty.

Grudem's intransigence on the matter, of course, is extremely well-known.

[Doug Chaplin]

I am inlcined to think about the ESV as the Extremely Sexist Version. I think I'm surprised by some of the names on the list, because I suspect the overall tone of this Bible will not please them. I'm also annoyed that the only person commenting on OT Canon and Apocrypha is Beckwith. His views on these topics seem to me far more driven by a certain Protestant orthodoxy than by the evidence.

[JohnFH]

It will be interesting to see if Beckwith simply re-presents his earlier theses. If so, his contribution will seem stale and dated.

I'm sure, in any case, that a number of contributors will acquit themselves very well. I'm impressed that someone like Gathercole is contributing on the all-important Pauline corpus. We'll see what comes of that.

[Doug Chaplin]

I know I'm becoming jaundiced when I think that if anyone says anything interesting, Grudem will edit it out. :-;

[Jim Getz]

I gotta admit, I'm not feeling the love on this one.

Despite the touted diversity of "9 countries, representing nearly 20 denominations and more than 50 seminaries, colleges, and universities" it looks like a SBC study Bible to me.

[Charles Halton]

SBC Study Bible? There are a handful of SBC profs (almost all from Southern Seminary) but only that--a handful. There are way more Presbyterian faculty members on this list than SBC.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

A friend wrote to me just the other day,

The more I think of the choices you have indicated that were made for the ESV, the more irritated I am. I resent as a HUMAN BEING the substition of sons for children and hope and believe I would be just as troubled if I were male...!

Obviously we are deluded. Most men do not see how women feel about finding that they are no longer children of God. And nobody in this woman's church would ever treat a woman as if she were a son of God so she is out of luck.

[JohnFH]

You make an excellent point, Suzanne, and I hope that the many readers who are coming over from the ESV blog - which linked to this post - will consider it.

However, the issue is mixed up with many others. For example, should we also avoid gendering God when referring to him? Is this part of a larger push which is interested, not in translating the Bible, warts and all, but correcting its substance wherever it is held to be incompatible with current sensibilities?

For many of us who are pastors, the claim that the fact that the Good News Bible, the KJV, RSV, ESV, or what have you has 'sons' instead of 'children' when the latter would be a more appropriate translation, leads those who are not 'sons' but 'daughters' to feeling that they are excluded, does not ring true. In my congregation, whoever is reading scripture for a particular Sunday is allowed to read from whatever translation she or he chooses. So far, I have never seen that choice made, by man or woman, based on the issue of language inclusiveness.

In the sermon, I will often parse the text out, so to speak, in gender-specific, age-specific, and social class specific language, relating it to different categories of people, first to one, and then to another. If the translation that was read has "brothers" even though "brothers and sisters" are the clear referents, I will try to bring that out. To my mind, doing this kind of thing matters more than whether "brothers" or "brothers and sisters" stands in the translation.

When choosing a pew Bible, furthermore, the inclusive language issue, either way, is not the thing that moves the choices of women or men. At least not in my experience. In my context, United Methodist - not an ideologically driven one outside of the seminaries - people are looking for a Bible that speaks to them in familiar language, which means a translation in the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition. ESV provides this to a greater degree than does NRSV and (T)NIV.

[Iyov]

in familiar language, which means a translation in the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition. ESV provides this to a greater degree than does NRSV and (T)NIV.

OK, I'm stumped. Given your desideratum for choosing a translation (something close to the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV tradition) -- why not use the KJV? Because, the KJV is much closer to the Tyndale-Geneva-KJV than the ESV is. The KJV is in the public domain as well, so KJV pew bibles are going to be cheaper than ESV volumes. And the KJV is hardly an obscure translation: I wager that most of your congregation already has a KJV somewhere at home.

Now, if you answer with something like "the KJV is too far from contemporary language" and "the KJV is an older translation, and does not reflect the most contemporary scholarship" then it seems to me you must seriously consider arguments of that form made against the ESV.

[J. K. Gayle]

John and Suzanne,
We're all outsiders to the Bible. If goyim, then it's clearer. If Jewish, then that was oh so long ago. Same is true if we're Greek or any other Mediterranean ethnics. The poetry, histories, prophecies, and more particularly the letters--not ours. We're eavesdroppers, as Richard B Hays puts it in his commentary on I Cor., reading somebody else's mail.

And yet we hear voices directed to us. An immediate voice, not transcendent and not ancient. And if Wycliffe Bible translators has anything to do with it, not a foreign language voice either.

So Suzanne, your observation with respect to your friend's comment is very very astute. It's very very sad to have one group exclude another: given that each one of us--whether female or male--each one indeed is an outsider to the Bible. "Most men do not see how women feel about finding that they are no longer children of God."

This is not about "son" and "not daughter" in the text. It is about a team of translators of the Bible--dozens of men and not even one women--saying in rhetorical translation that the text can only mean the one thing they say it means. And, infamously, the one thing the team likes to say is that "husband" is over "wife" just as "master is over slave"; and by inference: "man" is over "woman"; "son" is over "daughter."

Females, therefore, must not speak nor teach their husbands or sons in church. Because these male translators are, well "men," they can say this. They can say that the Bible includes them more than it does "women." Sometimes this stuff is subtle. In the case of Rev Grudem and team, it's not always so subtle. There is no proper humility by these men on this point! They refuse to be outsiders. And yet they are to the text. If they have any claim to the immediacy of God's voice, to his living word, then then then they must allow women and females today the same claim.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

John,

You evidently have never noticed that in Matt 5:9 the KJV and the Good news Bible have "children" and not "sons." A woman who knows the Bible knows this. I can't speak to situations of biblical illiteracy which is all I read in your comment. Clearly you are not choosing a Bible because it sounds like the KJV because you don't know what it sounds like.

I am not talking about 'gender inclusivenes' but about gender accuracy. You persist in misunderstanding. Why, in the ESV, do Israel and Abraham have "children" and God has only "sons." why change the familiar language of the KJV? Why translate the same word as "children" for Abraham but "sons" for God. Obviously women would be better off Jewish, that is the clear message of this translation.

The Reformation was built on the Luther Bible in which God had only children. The NIV, NASB, RSV and ESV are retrograde on this. If women who grew up on these modern Bibles want "sons" only, just say so, but don't mix this up with those who are familiar with the KJV (or Tyndale or Luther).

Why does the ESV translate anthropos as "people" in many places, but as "men" only in 2 Tim. 2:2 and Eph. 4:8? Because God forbid that women should ever think that they can teach. The lack of basic gender accuracy is simply appalling, let alone the downgrading of Christ from the "in bosom of father" to "at his side" in John 1.

Then you have all those upper case words in the Psalms.

[JohnFH]

It's not my desideratum, Iyov. I was pointing out what people in a mainline Protestant denomination tend to do, if given a choice between having NRSV, ESV, and (T)NIV as a pew Bible: they choose ESV. That, at least, is my experience.

Most people are not able to enunciate KJV correctly when they read it in worship. That's one problem. The other is that many people grew up with the RSV, and that is their gold standard, except for familiar passages like Psalm 23 for which they continue to prefer KJV language.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

And the truth is that I had no idea these things were in the ESV when I first used it. I was not forewarned. But reading 2 Tim 2;2 I felt that I had been scalded. I just dropped the Bible in shock. The fact that other women are not familiar enough with what the text ought to say is no advertisement. It is the text of fundamental illiteracy. The KJV meant "people" when it said "men" and the ESV most emphatically does not. It drives a sword between men and women and establishes the male-female relationship as one of ruler over subject according to the infamous and inaccurate kephale study.

I am just shocked that biblical illiteracy has reached the point that something like this can happen.

[Suzanne McCarthy]

If people don't want an accurate Bible I guess there isn't much to be done about it.

[J. K. Gayle]

I am just shocked that biblical illiteracy has reached the point that something like this can happen.

Suzanne,
You are much too kind. It's the opposite of illiteracy--hardly naiveté--that such inaccuracies are motivated by. It's not mean-spirited but it is a conscious re-education program, I think, based on fear that somehow the cult of feminism (viz. some sort of postmodern, cultural relativistic, politically correct society of gender-inclusive language) is going to rob men of their power. Or even pull women out of their proper and sole domestic arena.

Yes it does feel as if "there isn't much to be done about it." But your speaking does much!

[Iyov]

John, that's absurd. According to the sales figures from the CBA, there has never -- never -- never been a month when the the ESV has outsold the KJV. There has never -- never -- never been a month when the ESV has outsold the NIV. In fact, there has never -- never -- never been a month where the ESV has outsold the NKJV. (For that matter, for some time now, even the TNIV has been outselling the ESV in terms of dollar sales.)

So, I think you are ducking responsibility when you lay this decision on the heads of your congregation. Reverend, I think they are getting this from their spiritual leaders.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

actually, I have noticed the things you talk about. Or rather, you've pointed them out to me on the very helpful Better Bibles blog, and I'm grateful that you have done so.

I think the example of Matthew 5:9 is instructive. Perhaps I should post on these things, I don't know. I preached on the Beatitudes not long ago. The pew Bible in the church I pastor is NIV. The choice was made years before I arrived. NIV has 'sons of God,' and I preached from it. I distinctly remember expositing the text with examples male and female, Christian and non-Christian. I spoke of 'sons of God' and 'daughters of God,' but never once of 'children of God.' Why?

Because 'children of God' has a jejune ring to it. 'Children' doesn't have the right connotations for use in this context, or, for example, in Romans 8:19. Note KJV in the latter case, and REB. "Children" in English sounds like 'tekna' does in Greek, not like 'uioi.' The latter is of course gender-inclusive in many contexts.

Now not everyone will agree with me on the above particulars, and I can live with that. REB has 'children' in Matthew and 'sons' in Romans. I prefer 'sons' in both cases. But I repeat, I preach inclusively on both passages. Of course. To do otherwise would be absurd.

Now, there is a vocal minority in the denomination in which I serve that looks upon a preacher like me who doesn't clean up my language to their satisfaction, including doing away with formulae such as "Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit," as beyond the pale. To which I respond, as do many others I know: on the one hand, I will will redouble my efforts to be inclusive in my ministry; on the other, I will be even more un-PC and unpredictable than before in my language, for the joy of rankling the language police.

[Iyov]

I will be even more un-PC and unpredictable than before in my language, for the joy of rankling the language police

I can't wait to see your "color[ed]ful" language when you next talk about Obama and Jeremy Wright. And, of course, the kikes.

[J. K. Gayle]

Iyov,
Sen. Obama and Rev. Wright and any of us can rankle the language police. I'd love to hear your response to John's acceptance to your invitation to talk un-PC about "the kikes." (Can I say that?)

But none of that has the force of the Word of God (however he's gendered) when it is used to silence. The language police are just whiny babies. The authorized team of translators of the canon of the Jewish (and Christian) scriptures want to do so much more.

[Peter Kirk]

John, you are talking sense when you question the translation "children" in these cases. It is particularly inept in Galatians 3:26 (NRSV and TNIV) and 4:6 (NRSV but not TNIV) where the main point in context is that they are not children (4:1) but adults. Also in Romans 8:14,16,19,21 there is a deliberate alternation of "children" and "sons" which is lost in NRSV and TNIV.

But we have to remember that most people who read or hear a Bible passage do not immediately have it explained to them by a competent pastor like yourself. So when they hear "sons of God" their first impression that it refers to men only is never corrected.

There is no easy answer. I think TNIV has done about as well as can be done. But it is not the only possible solution. In some cases it might be good to translate "sons and daughters" rather than "children" - as is explicit in the Greek of 2 Corinthians 6:18.

[JohnFH]

Iyov,

You make some excellent points. Sales figures of course do not translate easily into data about what Bibles people actually read from. But I think it's true that ESV would sell far better than it does if it were not associated in the minds of most, and rightfully so, with a particular brand of Reformed theology. To be sure, it sells far beyond the limits of that confessional stripe.

And you are quite right that many pastors feel it is their prerogative to decide for their congregation what Bible is in the pews, and will say all kinds of awful things about this or that Bible translation from the pulpit. Surely it will not surprise you that I am more inclined, when the lector for the day reads from her well-worn copy of the Living Bible or the Message, to pick up on some positive element in the paraphrase, and otherwise preach from Greek or the Hebrew, translating ad lib, or in relation to other, more literal translations. I have found this less dictatorial approach to be more effective in the long run.

[Suzanne]

John,

Its your illiteracy that I am talking about. "Children of God" sounds like "Children of Israel." Since when do you talk about the "sons of Israel" as a nation? Just because people have been influenced by the NIV, thank goodness I was preserved from all those translations. Got to go.

[Suzanne]

PS John,

What is your opinion of 2 TIm. 2:2 in the ESV.