More Silent Emendations in NJPSV and ESV

Silent emendation #9

14 *דַּלּוּ* עֵינַי לַמָּרוֹם 

NJPSV

As my eyes, *all worn,* looked to heaven:

ESV

My eyes *are weary* with looking upward.

MT דַּלּוּ עֵינַי לַמָּרוֹם might mean ‘my eyes hung dejectedly toward heaven.’ Such an idiom, however, is not otherwise attested. The Targum and the Syriac make use of a passive construction and render ‘my eyes were raised toward heaven.’ Indeed, Aramaic זקף means ‘raise up, erect’ across a broad range of semantic domains, for example, ‘raising someone up on a cross’ = hanging someone on a cross. The facts of ‘being raised up’ and ‘being hung’ are expressed with the selfsame verb. Furthermore, the verbs דלה ‘lift up’ and דלל ‘hang,’ are semantically affine in Hebrew. In Aramaic, both דלי ‘lift up’ and זקף ‘raise up’ are attested with eyes as the object in an active construction.

With Hebrew  דלה  in mind, it is possible to return to the text in hand and vocalize דֻּלּוּ ‘my eyes were drawn up to heaven.’ Again, however, such an idiom is not otherwise attested. REB translates ‘are raised up,’ which is equivalent to the cognate in Aramaic and Syriac.

It is also possible that דַּלּוּ means ‘my eyes grew weak [looking] toward heaven.’ Barré claims that the root דלל is not used of physical weakness. But that overlooks the use of the adjective דַּל in the sense of physical weakness or reduction (Gen 41:19). NAB, NJB, TNIV, and HCSB render 'grew weak' or similar. Still, it must be admitted that the verb in this sense with a physical entity as subject is not otherwise attested.

On the other hand, כָּלוּ עֵינַיִם לְ is a well-attested idiom. כלה with this idiom, in BDB and HALOT, is glossed with ‘pine, languish.’ But as Mayer Gruber has shown, כלו עינים refers to eyes being ‘exhausted’ of, or running out of, tears.[1] Older alternative construals imagined eyes that are ‘weary’ or ‘worn out’ (not necessarily from crying). Barré’s discussion of the question is ample, and marks an advance over previous treatments.

In short, the only solution that depends on an attested idiom involves reading כָּלוּ and assuming a כ/ד confusion. It seems likely that LXX Isa 38:14 ἐξέλιπον ‘have failed’ or ‘cease’ presupposes כלו in its Vorlage. For the idiom, cf. especially Ps 69:4; 119: 82, 122-23; 1QH 9:5.

Silently emending translations: besides NJPSV ‘all worn’ and ESV ‘are weary’: RSV ‘are weary’; NRSV ditto. To be sure, it remains possible that these translations are simply attempting to translate דַּלּוּ idiomatically. The explanation, however, is not particularly convincing, especially for RSV and ESV, both of which seek to be “as literal as possible, and as free as necessary.” NASB95’s ‘look wistfully’ is difficult to explain.

Translations that adhere more strictly to MT: REB ‘are raised to’; NAB ‘grow weak’; HSCB ditto; (T)NIV ‘grew weak’; and NJB ‘have grown dim.’

Silent emendations #10 and #11

15 *אֶדַּדֶּה* כָל־*שְׁנוֹתַי*

NJPSV

All *my sleep* *had fled*

ESV

I walk slowly all my years.

The traditional interpretation of MT אֶדַּדֶּה כָל־שְׁנוֹתַי, in line with the received vocalization, understands the verb to be a Hitpael of דדה and the following noun phrase to be its object. The translation, based also on occurrences of the verb in post-biblical Hebrew and its cognate in post-biblical Aramaic, might be ‘hobble about,’ but usually, in line with Ps 42:5, the phrase is thought to mean ‘I will proceed at a slow pace all my years.’ ESV, NAB, NJB, KJV, ESV, HCSB, and TNIV render accordingly. Ps 42:5, however, is an obscure text. So understood, Isa 38:15 is also obscure.

אדדה might be otherwise vocalized. 1QIsa^a appears to assume the following vocalization: אֶדּוֹדָה. The verb would then be Qal נדד ‘to flee,’ perhaps also ‘wander about.’ NASB95 translates accordingly: ‘I will wander about all my years.’ Since NASB95 does not follow MT in this instance, there ought to be a note to that effect.

The Syriac translates as follows: ‘and he has driven away all my sleep.’ It is not clear how the translator parsed אדדה, if that is what he found in his Vorlage. שנותי, in any case, he understood as שנתי ‘my sleep.’ The sense of the phrase, as Barthélemy notes, is assimilated to two clear passages, Gen 31:40 and Esther 6:1, in which שנה ‘sleep’ is said to נדד ‘flee.’ Along these lines, Goshen-Gottstein in HUBP suggested reading וָאֶדִּדֶּה כל שנתי ‘(and) I put my sleep to flight.’ He puts the waw in parentheses, as if it were not necessary, but this is doubtful.

The least drastic emendation of the received text such that it yields an acceptable sense is to read נדדה כל־שנתי ‘all my sleep has fled’ (א/נ confusion; incorrect understanding of שנתי leading to the addition of an errant mater lectionis). Ehrlich was the first to proposed the Hebrew just noted.[2] NJPSV translates similarly: ‘all my sleep had fled,’ with a note that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. In fact, the translation depends on two emendations to the MT.

Silently emending translations: besides NJPSV: REB ‘I shall wander to and fro all my life long’ (based on 1QIsa^a); and NASB95 ‘I will wander about all my years’ (based on 1QIsa^a, or HUBP’s suggestion?) RSV ‘all my sleep has fled’ and NRSV ditto also emend, but not silently (NRSV’s footnote: “Cn Compare Syr: Heb I will walk slowly all my years).

Translations that adhere to MT: besides ESV: HCSB ‘I walk along slowly all my years’; and (T)NIV ‘I will walk humbly all my years.’ NAB ‘I shall go on through all my years’ and NJB ‘I must eke out the rest of my years' are difficult to explain.

---

[1] Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (2 vols.; Studia Pohl 12; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1980) 1:390-400.

[2] W. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel (7 vols.; Leipzig: Heinrichs, 1908-14) ad loc.

Comments

[Iyov]

Example 9: The ESV copies from the RSV word for word. There is no intellectual contribution of the ESV here at all. (In the NJPS, this is certainly an attempt at idiomatic translation.)

Example 10: The RSV and the NJPS say clearly that the Hebrew text is uncertain (in which case, in the NJPS, always means that it has varied from the original text, a point you completely elide over). So, your claim that the NJPS "silently emmends" is simply false. However, the ESV magically claims certainty, which is certainly intellectually dishonest.

Example 11: The RSV and the NJPS say clearly that the Hebrew text is uncertain (in which case, in the NJPS, always means that it has varied from the original text, a point you completely elide over). So, your claim that the NJPS "silently emmends" is simply false. However, the ESV magically claims certainty, ive meaning from the Targum, which is certainly intellectually dishonest.

[JohnFH]

Personally, I think your criticism of ESV as a concept - a revision of RSV - is over the top. At some point, you might wish to put aside your animus for the particular confessional variety of Christianity those who produced ESV adhere to, and think about the translation more objectively.

My Logos software informs me that, across Isa 38:9-20, ESV departs from KJV 34% of the time, NRSV 36% of the time, NASB95 38% of the time, and HCSB 41% of the time. All of these translations seek to stand within the Tyndale-Geneva [horrors!]-KJV tradition, and at the same time, be faithful to their understanding of the traditional Hebrew text. If you slur one of these translations for not being original enough, you must slur them all.

On a couple of details you plain misread my comments. There is, however, one matter you get wrong which cannot go unanswered, your claim that (as you made in a previous comment):

JPS say[s] clearly that the Hebrew text is uncertain (in which case, in the NJPS, always means that they have varied from the original text, a point you completely elide over).

In the 1985 JPS Preface, the opposite is stated. I quote:

Like the translation of The Torah, the present translation of the prophetic books adheres strictly to the traditional Hebrew text; but where the text remains obscure and alteration provides marked clarification, *a footnote is offered with a rendering of the suggested emendation.* [asterisks mine]. . . . In *all* cases [asterisks mine], the emendation is given in a footnote, which may be disregarded by those who reject it on either scholarly or religious grounds. The *only* [asterisks mine] exceptions involve such changes in grammatical form as those, say, from second person to third or from singular to plural. *In such rare instances, the change is incorporated in the text, and the traditional Hebrew is translated in a footnote.* [asterisks mine]

I rest my case. For anyone who has not read what else I've written about NJPSV, let me repeat: despite its failure to live up to its own preface, I recommend NJPSV over all other English translations of the Hebrew Bible on the market, in particular, in The Jewish Study Bible edition.

[Iyov]

I note that you did not compare the ESV and the RSV. Why don't you compare those? That is the element of non-novelty.

By and large, the substantive revisions of the ESV over the RSV are to impute New Testament readings into the OT. That may or may not be a valid way of reading the Hebrew Bible (depending on your confessional stance -- I gather for you it is) but it is certainly not a "word for word" translation of the Hebrew Bible, as the ESV literature claims.

You cannot even quote the preface to the Tanakh correctly. Here is what it says (from my Libronix edition -- I note that you said you had this edition.) I have added italics to emphasize:

"In preparing the translation of The Prophets, the translators faced a recurring problem that deserves special mention. The prophetic books contain many passages whose meaning is uncertain. Thus, in order to provide an intelligible rendering, modern scholars have resorted to emending the Hebrew text. Some of these emendations derive from the ancient translators, especially of the Septuagint and the Targums, who had before them a Hebrew text that sometimes differed from today’s traditional text. Where these ancient versions provide no help, some scholars have made conjectural emendations of their own. Many modern English versions contain translations of emended texts, sometimes without citing any departure from the traditional Hebrew text."

That seems to me to be the model of intellectual honesty, unlike your post, which requires that translators be capable of time-travel, take unrepresentative examples, and fails to not the careful footnoting in the RSV and NJPS, unlike the ESV.

[JohnFH]

Iyov,

your quotation from the 1985 JPS preface is outlandish, and your criticism without foundation. Please take the time to read the preface with care.

The paragraph you quote sets the stage for the very next paragraph, from which I quoted, from my edition of the Jewish Study Bible (OUP).

The point the preface makes - and which I quoted - is that NJPSV seeks to do *better than* "many" other "modern English versions."

What I prove in this series of posts, much to my own consternation, is that NJPSV fails to live up to its own preface.

You are welcome to compare RSV and ESV word-for-word any time. Please do a thorough job of it, rather than throwing around undocumented accusations.

From my point of view, ESV sometimes represents an improvement over RSV in the passage under consideration, and sometimes does not.

Both RSV and ESV stick much closer to MT than does NJPSV, and they are also more consistent than NJPSV in alerting readers to the fact.

[Iyov]

Regarding the preface to the NJPS: No, John, that is called reading the preface in context. You misquoted a paragraph out of the NJPS preface (not even checking it for spelling accuracy: "inn") wihtout giving the paragraph before. When a passage is uncertain it follows necessarily that the English translation is emended. I don't see why this simple point of logic is so hard for you to grasp.

I realize that you follow in a long line of Wisconsin-based RSV-bashers -- dating back to Joseph McCarthy, who claimed that the RSV was a communist translation (a point still noted with some pain on the SBL web site.) Thus, this entirely watered down translation -- the ESV -- with its elimination of scholarly footnotes and exaggerated claims of "being new" and "word-for-word" accurate and requirements of "religious correctness" by its mediocre Translation Oversight Committee represents a safe, Calvinist alternative to us "communists."

Well, I am glad you have found in the whole Hebrew Scriptures 12 verses that -- when you misrepresent them and fail to point out that the majority are taken wholesale from the RSV -- make a . . . well, the truth is, your case is entirely muddled. You seem to claim that the ESV is more accurate in translating these 12 verses, but of course, you pick and choose which words you wanted to analyze, and you also are forced to admit that even the ESV does a lousy job.

In contrast, I have amply made my case quite well that the ESV simply engages in wholesale plagiarism from the RSV and when it differs, usually differs for the worse. But feel free to insinuate otherwise, because, as Joseph McCarthy would explain, I'm using a communist translation.

[JohnFH]

Iyov,

Thank you, as always, for noting typos in my posts. Someday, you will catch me in grosser error, but I don't think you succeeded this time.

You say:

When a passage is uncertain it follows necessarily that the English translation is emended. I don't see why this simple point of logic is so hard for you to grasp.

This is nonsense, Iyov. Please read on in the preface, you will see that the opposite claim is made. The language is quite specific.

It pains me, furthermore, that you are unable to take the examples I give seriously. Fine, write them off. But you might want to take another look at Moshe Greenberg's famous article entitled "The New Torah Translation." You cannot possibly have read it, because if you had, you would have realized that he makes the same points I make, with examples from the Torah. He too notes that emendations, "tacit or explicit,' have been adopted in the body of the translation (p 255 in the volume referenced below). He too notes that emendations are sometimes "concealed behind misleading 'lit.' or 'others' notes (p. 256). He gives examples from the Torah, which perhaps you are more familiar with.

My sin is to have made the same points Greenberg made long ago, with care and precision in another part of the Tanakh, where it must be said that the problems he noted are more, not less, intense.

Moshe Greenberg, "The New Torah Translation [1963],' in Studies in the Bible and Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: JPS, 1995) 245-260.

[Iyov]

To the contrary, John, I do not dispute the NJPS can be bettered; that is old news and hardly worth noting. (Although, your argument that the NJPS translators should have been aware of material that was published after the translation appeared is certainly novel.) At least the NJPS goes to the trouble of noting that passages are uncertain.

In contrast, I give you the ESV, which, with certainty that can only come from a cockiness that arises from a deep-seated Calvinist self-satisfaction, barely even bothers to footnote its translation. The ESV simply copies the RSV by stripping the RSV's careful footnotes and engaging in wholesale copying.

Now, you seem to be very impressed by Logos's "compare parallel bible versions" tool. But for some strange reason, you refused to compare the ESV against the RSV (although you felt free to compare it against the HCSB, NRSV, HCSB, and KJV). So here are the figures:

ESV against RSV: 11.8% difference

That is of course, against the next nearest translation you report, the KJV, which is three times as different.

We can clearly see that the ESV is just a repackaged version of the RSV -- the substantive differences being reading the NT into the OT, stripping out the deuterocanonical books, and dumbing down thou and thee.

Now, if you still think the ESV is an improvement over the RSV, may I ask: why do scholars in JBL, Vetus Testamentum, and Novum Testamentum quote the RSV and not the ESV? Is this part of some vast consipiracy? Or is it because the entire weight of scholarly interpretation favors the RSV over the ESV. Except for you and Joe McCarthy.

[JohnFH]

Iyov,

Well this is fun. It looks like my crime is to have repeated things you already knew but contested until I quoted a non-shaygetz who made the same points with examples drawn from the Torah.

You misunderstand my purpose in citing the Deir 'Alla texts in clarification of a passage in Isa 38. My beef was not that NJPSV, before Deir 'Alla, emended the passage in Isa in light of a passage in Jer. My beef is that it did so silently.

I appreciate you citing RSV comparisons in the Logos suite. Dummy that I am, I didn't even know that I could do that. I didn't know RSV was in the my package (I found it now, plus a bunch of others I didn't know I have).

ESV does improve on RSV fairly often. I count 4 instances in the passage under consideration. If, on religious grounds, you want nothing to do with a translation that departs from MT, the number doubles or even triples.

Sure, ESV also takes steps backward, e.g., on passages like Isa 7:14 (contrast the NET Bible). I agree that things like these are worth pointing out - and I did so, in previous posts on Isa 7:14 and Zech 9:9.

But this series has a different focus. Old hat to you, perhaps, but not to many others.

[Iyov]

The RSV is in almost all packages of Logos: Christian Home Library, Bible Study Library, Leader's Library, Original Languages Library, and all three Scholar's Libraries (Regular, Silver, and Gold). Look here for comparison. Which base package do you own? It may be worth your time to study those resources you have available before making unjustified claims about the ESV's "accuracy" and novelty in the future.

Second, you are simply backtracking. You asserted at the very start, "ESV, analysis shows, makes a defensible claim." I gather now, in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, that you now wish to withdraw that claim. I will not object, and hope that you will share your experience with your congregation.

I have oft criticized the NJPS for being free, particularly in the Prophets and the Writing. I reprinted part of Orlinsky's detailed annotations to the Chumash on my blog, so I think I have amply demonstrated my concerns over the NJPS translation. Indeed, you will note that I prefer the KJV (for literary effect) or the NRSV (for scholarly study).

The NRSV and RSV were true ecumenical efforts -- attempts to represent multiple points of view. In contrast, the ESV was Translation Oversight Committee was all white, all male, all Calvinist -- with no stars at all in Hebrew translation.

Finally, I am happy to consider the views of both shaigetz and non-shaigetz. However, I would be much more happy to also see some views of shiksa and non-shiksa. They are nowhere to be found on the ESV Translation Oversight Committee -- or apparently among the 100+ "grunts" who you elsewhere claim did the actual work of "translation". Now perhaps that was to be expected in the '40s and '50s when the RSV was penned. It is much harder to justify for a 21st century.

Indeed, the forthcoming ESV Study Bible, which you eagerly anticipate (I'm just calling it the "Covenant Theological Seminary" Bible) couldn't find any women worthy of including either.

Do you know that even ArtScroll involves women in its translations of the Talmud. Now, it does not do so as often as I would prefer, but it doesn't just slam the door on a group that, as Suzanne has pointed out, the ESV crowd claims was not even made in the image of God.

And yet, it is this travesty of a "translation" that you praise, mostly by selective quotation and manipulation of the facts. It is this travesty of a "translation" that you allow to be used as a pew Bible. Pardon me if I derisively harrumph.

[JohnFH]

All I need, Iyov, to judge ESV's faithfulness to MT, is ESV and MT. When in doubt, I look at HUBP, the scientific commentaries, like Wildberger, Alonso-Schokel, Blenkinsopp, and especially the monograph by Barre (almost 300 pages on this one pericope).

My claim that ESV follows MT to the point of pedantry is non-controversial. I could not withdraw this claim if I wanted to.

I have the Gold package. But I don't even know what I have in there yet.

You say: I have oft criticized the NJPS for being free, particularly in the Prophets and the Writing. I reprinted part of Orlinsky's detailed annotations to the Chumash on my blog, so I think I have amply demonstrated my concerns over the NJPS translation. Indeed, you will note that I prefer the KJV (for literary effect) or the NRSV (for scholarly study).

- - I prefer NJPSV for scholarly study.

The NRSV and RSV were true ecumenical efforts -- attempts to represent multiple points of view.

- - RSV was more successful than NRSV at being super partes. ESV was not conceived as an ecumenical effort, any more than NJPSV was. Neither should be judged failures for that reason.

I certainly consider it a blessing to serve a religious body that allows and encourages the ordination of women. I am not in the habit, however, of dressing down my Roman Catholic, Orthodox, conservative evangelical, and orthodox Jewish friends for not being as "progressive" on "feminist" issues as the church body that I serve. For one thing, there are tradeoffs in this regard which rarely get discussed. For that very reason, there are plenty of people with "progressive" views on "feminist" issues who choose to remain in or even switch to a brand of Christianity or Judaism that excludes women from the priesthood, the pastorate, or the rabbinate.

[Suzanne]

John,

The ESV is simply a giant step backwards for women from the KJV.

[Suzanne]

I am surprised that you put so much emphasis on the denomination and on the views of the minister, not realizing that many women go directly to the scripture for their beliefs. Unfortunately many women cannot read Greek. I have received many emails from women who are concerned about these things.

I do think that the TNIV is the most accurate on all verses relating to women in the NT.

[JohnFH]

You have a point, Suzanne.

In religious bodies which exclude women from the priesthood, the pastorate, the rabbinate, or similar, women traditionally take advantage of interstitial spaces, or carve out new ones, in which they cultivate their relationship with the Eternal and with each other.

These spaces, except in some feminist fantasies, are not really in opposition to the more public spaces dominated by male authority. But they do provide a counterweight to the public spaces, and their importance should not be underestimated.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you recommend TNIV to Christian men and women because it succeeds better than other translations in being gender-accurate in its rendering. The premise of course is disputed, but your logic is impeccable.

In all honesty, I cannot recommend TNIV for the reasons you do (I recommend it for other reasons, because it is an excellent middle-of-the-road DE translation). With respect to the issues at hand, the problem is this. Its formatting and translation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are a step in the wrong direction.

NRSV, REB, and NAB are correct in understanding and formatting all of 2:8-15 as a single paragraph. In this way, the scope of 2:11-12 is suitably restricted. By "suitably," I mean "in accordance with context."

TNIV begins a new paragraph with 2:11-12, rather than subsuming it under the preceding, and translates as follows:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

True, there are notes suggesting alternative translations (which I find misleading, let it be said), but when (T)NIV is used as a pew Bible, or read from the pulpit, it is not of course the footnote that is read.

I am not in a position to argue this here, but here is a translation that captures the sense of 1 Tim 2:11 better than TNIV does:

During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful.

That's NJB. It translates in accordance with context. It is also premised on the fact - at least, I think it is a fact - that the usual literal translation of hupotage with 'submission' is insensitive to the way the term is bleached out in source language usage.

Here is a translation of 1 Tim 2:12 that captures the sense of 1 Tim 2:12 far better than TNIV does:

I give no permission for a woman to teach or have authority over a man. A woman ought to be quiet, because . . .

That's NJB again. Now, perhaps it's true that it would be more accurate to translate:

I give no permission for a woman to teach or dictate to a man. A woman ought to be quiet, because . . .

That translation of authentein is in line with REB. That would be my current preference, but then, I have not investigated the matter in depth, and I am struck by the fact that NRSV, NJB, and NAB all translate 'have authority over a man.' Ad hominen arguments against the translation teams in question would be rather silly, don't you think?

Now, it's true that the adversative 'alla' connects with the preceding, but the clause it introduces also introduces the 'de' paragraph which follows. Which is why I find NJB's construal helpful.

On this understanding of 1 Tim 2:8-15, it is not innovative with respect to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians.

TNIV, by its formatting and translation choices in this passage, is not a paragon of accuracy. That, at least, is how I see it.

For the record, the pew Bible in the congregation I serve is NIV. The choice was made before I came. Confirmands receive a copy of TNIV. That is my choice. When I teach from the Bible, I try to model a canonical hermeneutic in which, for example, this Timothy passage is interpreted in light of Galatians 3:26-28.

[Suzanne]

Thank you John, for this careful analysis.

First, it is true that many translations have used "have authority" for authentein.

However, in the last few years the studies show rather conclusively that "have authority" is not a meaning contemporary with the epistle. Rather, "take authority to oneself that rightfully belongs to another" or "set oneself up as an authority on one's own strength."

The translators of the ESV and many others depend on the conclusions wrongly drawn from the Baldwin study. So, I hold the recently published translations more responsible than the NRSV, although I am aware of how it translates that verse.

If you are interested I can review the authentein study with you and you can express an opinion of the raw data. I have reviewed this question with some knowledgeable complementarians who agree that there is not enough support for "have authority."

The paragraphing and translation of this passage are not necessarily my preference in the TNIV. However, if you notice the paragraphing of Eph. 5:21 and following in the ESV, HSCB and TNIV you will see an important difference.

The ESV and HCSB break after verse 22 and the TNIV before. Those who read the ESV and HCSB are told that mutual submission is a myth. I can only conclude from this that these Bibles teach a man that he does not need to submit to his wife. Submission can only be a one way affair in these Bibles. That is explicitly taught by the ESV editor, in spite of evidence in other literature to the contrary.

There are several other issues. For example Junia. While many Bibles translated this as Junias, that depended on the evidence of the N-A text. Now we simply know better. The Junia hypothesis, that she was "well-known to" stands undefended. Wallace emailed me last year that he had assigned the job of defending the Junia hypothesis to Mike Burer but he has not responded. There is little basis in the Greek for this interpretation. All native Greek speakers from Chrysostom to present regard her as an apostle. They may assign a female apostle a different role but that is another question. They have not specifically said that a woman cannot be an apostle.

The problem is that women go by themselves to the text and they are perplexed. My mother would not touch any other Bible but the KJV because of the treatment of women in these texts.

I am not sure what your reference to 1 Cor. is about. Kephale hasnot been proven to mean authority over. That proof does not exist. And verse 10 is notoriously difficult but there is not one example in Greek literature where exousia meant to be "under authority."

We all inherit the use of certain Bibles. That is practical. It is different from recommending something that one knows to be wrong. I do know that certain verses are the way they are in order to keep women from being leaders in a church.

Since I attended a church where women used to preach from the pulpit and no longer are allowed to, and where the ESV had some of its origins, I can only say that this does not make women feel protected, provided for or loved.

I also spent several hours yesterday evening with a woman from TO, a woman who was in our group. The story of rape, isolation and abuse would be incomprehensible anywhere. But to know that this women still attends a group that teaches male authority is more than I can bear.

Think back to when we were teenagers together. Think how many of the group have been beaten and raped. Now think what sex are those people?

[Suzanne]

Now ask whether the complementarian atttudes of the husbands and churches were of any help to those women. No, they were not. And egalitarians can't stop violence either. And violence and abuse happens to men and children also.

But at least women can be made less vulnerable, more psychically independent, even if they cannot be protected physically. They don't have to believe that God gives males priority as Bruce Ware teaches.

How much pain are women supposed to endure anyway?

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

I would invite you to supply the references to the recent studies on authentein you refer to. What journal or book do they appear in?

I am not impressed by your claim that complementarianism leads to greater violence against women. Some kinds of violence, perhaps. Others, perhaps, the opposite.

For example, it used to be, in Sicily, when the old male authoritarian ways held sway, that a woman could walk through the city of Palermo at any time, day or night, without fear of being molested. Now that those ways are dead or dying, assault on women in public places has become common, just as it is in other enlightened societies.

Now, let me add quickly: the datum I just cited proves nothing. Unfortunately, however, the same applies to your argument, when you cite a type of violence against women you are familiar with. In other words, your kind of argument is not the game-stopper you make it out to be.

In short, your focus is too narrow. You have to show that by casting out one demon (complementarianism), you do not end up making room for seven more (egalitarianism). Excuse me if I put it that way. I would object to a complementarian who asserted the moral superiority of her frame of reference with the same line of argument.

I live within an egalitarian church culture, and I do not regret it. However, I have seen too much to claim moral superiority for one frame of reference, as opposed to the other.

[Suzanne]

John,

You grossly misquote me and this is not the first time. I said,

Now ask whether the complementarian atttudes of the husbands and churches were of any help to those women. No, they were not. And egalitarians can't stop violence either. And violence and abuse happens to men and children also.

I explicitly denied that an egalitarian culture would necessarily protect women from violence. However, you choose not to read my comments. Why?

My point is that the teaching of the priority of the male, regardless of whether it is taught in church or in a bar, does not help women.

When it is taught in church it directly leads to women who are violated feeling that God does not love them. So women suffer not only violence but silence and shame and loss of God.

However the legal structure in place today does support and protect women, at least in my experience. Of course, maybe not as much as a class structure in the past might have protected rich women.

People are violent regardless of their theological position. Therefore, a woman who can make her own decisions, earn her own living and lead her own household is able to support herself and lessen the cost of violence on her body and on her psyche.

She does not have to struggle with whether men are more in the image of God than women. She does not have to struggle with whether she needs male authority. I have lived among both groups of people, as a woman.

[JohnFH]

I'm sorry, Suzanne, if I misunderstood you. I honestly thought you were claiming moral superiority for the egalitarian framework.

I remain interested in the newer authentein studies you refer to. I'm sure other readers are, too.

[Suzanne]

Yes, I claim moral superiority for a framework which attributes authority to morality unhampered by the physical attributes of the person. This is a morality unmixed by the ascription of authority by gender, skin colour or height.

I do not claim that egalitarians are more moral or less violent as people.

I claim that an egalitarian framework supports a woman in escaping abuse. Women are often abused by their so-called protectors. A woman who can look after herself is in better shape financially, emotionally and spiritually. These are very difficult issues for women who are abused by those who have recognized positions of authority over them.

I don't think there is any other way out except for a woman to reject male authority as a spiritual necessity. A woman must have an unclouded mind and ask if male power is working in her favour or not. If not, she should not feel that there is any reason God wants her to accept it.

On authentein, these are the only examples within two centuries of the epistle,

(Okay, this is really funny but since I have written about authentein CBMW have taken the evidence down off their website.)

However, Grudem still says,

Whenever we have seen this verb occur, it takes a neutral sense, "have authority'' or "exercise authority,'' with no negative connotation attaching to the word itself.

But he leaves out the examples because they don't prove his point.

Here are the examples,

http://biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Studies12.pdf

In the footnotes, Köstenberger provides the only two pieces of lexical evidence which he thinks are relevant. He says,

41These two references are: Philodemus (1st cent. BCE): “Ought we not to consider that men who incur the enmity of those in authority (συν αυθεντουσιν) are villains, and hated by both gods and men”;

and BGU 1208 (27 BCE): “I exercised authority (Καμου αυθεντηκοτος) over him, and he consented to provide for Catalytis the Boatman on terms of full fare, within the hour.” For full Greek texts and translations, see Baldwin, “Appendix 2” in Women in the Church, 275–76. (in the PDF page 13)

Others say that he "compelled" him or "made" him pay full fare within the hour.

The Philodemus fragment does not exist. I can send you links to that discussion via email but I don't think any complementarian would suggest it as evidence since I put the actual quote on the internet.

Here is the opinion of Al Wolters, who is complementarian, ( by email and quoted by me earlier)

I've puzzled long and hard over authentew in BGU 1208 and in the Philodemus fragment. Although most of the lexicographical authorities seem to give it the meaning "have authority over" in those contexts, I don't think anyone can really be sure. Most people (including Grudem) are too sure about their conclusions in this regard. I do think it's quite well established that authentes and its cognates often have to do with mastery and authority.

There is no other evidence. There is later evidence but it is very mixed and much of it is negative. I can send you more if you want.

There are several studies which complementarians now know are flawed because I have written to CBMW about them. They have not retracted their articles but do quietly take down some faulty evidence without changing their position.

Here are erroneous statements,

1. Submission is only to a person in authority and there is no such thing as mutual submission or submission to someone who is not an authority.

This is simply not true. I can give you examples.

2. Kephale means authority over.

This is not demonstrated to be true by Grudem's study.

3. Authentein means have authority over.

This is not shown to be true by the evidence.

4. Adelphoi means brothers more than brothers and sisters.

Check LSJ on this.

Grudem was informed of his mistake on this before the ESV was published and so "brother and sister" was added to the footnores.

4. Aner means man only.

The statement against the TNIV was partly on the basis that the TNIV was wrong in saying that the plural of aner could mean people.

There are many exmaples of aner meaning citizens, both male and female. This is made explicit in the text. When I emailed this evidence to CBMW they asked Grudem to respond and he said that he had not had the data available to him. I used the LSJ lexicon.

CBMW has not taken its statement against the TNIV down from its website.

5. Junia is well known to the apostles.

This depended on one piece of evidence which turned out to be a misunderstanding. Do you wish to read my series on Junia?

The facts are this. Each of these studies includes evidence which has since been discounted. There is no basis for any of the above. Linda Belleville has published some of the evidence and I have published more. CBMW is aware of everything I have published. They discreetly take down poor evidence from time to time but they continue to cite the studies as definitive. The translations of the Bible are not edited according to what is actually proven or not proven by these studies.

I have to ask what motivates people to believe something for which there is no evidence.

[Suzanne]

Linda Belleville's study on authentein is in Discovering Biblical Equality.

It all hangs on the fact that the Philodemus fragment is not admissible evidence. The study itself is in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, page 676.

Note how often the words "my own translation" occurs. Note the dates. Note the negative contexts.

Here is a link to my series on the Philodemus fragment. Ask yourself how that happened to be included.

Read this series of posts from bottom to top and click on the images. If you can translate this text and find the phrase "have authority" in it, I will congratulate you.

[JohnFH]

But has no one published anything in line with your views on authentein?

By "publish," I mean in a scholarly venue. If no one has, it certainly throws doubt on your conclusions. After all, the cultural climate in which we live - egalitarian - has not been hesitant in discovering biblical support for its views at every opportunity (even false and misleading ones).

[Suzanne]

I quoted Linda Belleville's article. It contains the main argument. It is scholarly. What else do you mean?

I have only added the visual. I have simply found the fragment and posted it on the internet for all comers. No one has yet tried to prove that authentein actually does mean "have authority over" but they all continue to argue that it MUST mean that, in spite of Jerome and the KJV.
But to "usurp authority" was a major crime in the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes, so when the KJV said "usurp authority" the right of women to be queens of England was protected.

[Suzanne]

Kostenberger has clearly said that there is no lexical data to support "to have authority".

the likelihood was suggested that “exercise authority” (Grk. authentein) carries a neutral or positive connotation, but owing to the scarcity of the term in ancient literature (the only NT occurrence is 1 Tim. 2:12; found only twice preceding the NT in extrabiblical literature) no firm conclusions could be reached on the basis of lexical study alone.

Wolters agreed with me on this by email. CBMW took down the evidence recently. But you doubt me!

There is no lexical data to support "to have authority." This is no secret.

[Suzanne]

Scott Mcknight dropped by my blog and agreed with me. However, he just did not think anyone had the time to go over the data one more time because it is so fruitless. Everybody just believes what they want.

Sorry, our posts crossed in cyberspace. I am happy to know of Linda Belleville's chapter on 1 Tim 2:11-14 in a book published by InterVarsity Press in 2004. The book as a whole looks very interesting.

To be honest, however, I am perplexed at this point. If her study is the conclusive one - along with further research you have yet to publish in article or book form, then I don't see how any Bible translation published to date can be criticized for not translating in accordance with its conclusions.

It takes time for even the most convincing theses to gain traction in academia. It also helps to publish things in the best peer-reviewed journals. If you and/or Linda Belleville have not done so already, I would encourage you to submit your research for publication in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Novum Testamentum, or the like. Degrees or the lack of them has no effect on publication in these periodicals. The only thing that matters is that the research methodology conforms to accepted standards.

Furthermore, I now think your war against ESV is truly misbegotten. ESV 1 Timothy 2:12, with its 'exercise authority over a man,' is more in line with your conclusions than is TNIV's 'have authority over.' If I were you, I would rejoice in ESV's translation of this verse, and note that, despite the well-known views of some members of the ESV Steering Committee, ESV's translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 marks a step forward.

I live in Luther-land and you don't, so perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the "Majority Report" of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, which comes down on your side of the argument, and includes, let it be said, a discussion of earlier scholarly literature that you might do well to highlight, justifiably makes a big deal of the fact that ESV's translation of authentein supports their view.

Google 'majority report LCMS authentein' to retrieve the doc. The dissenting report will be listed below it.

I point the minority report out because it gives the lie to the view that Grudem and Kostenberger are isolated in their views. They are not. Variations on what they teach are taught in many places, including, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. I know. As I mentioned before, just recently a RC friend of mine was banished from the pulpit she had preached from for many years on the basis of a rigid interpretation of, among other passages, 1 Tim 2:12.

On the other hand, and I cannot stress this too highly: what authentein means in 1 Tim 2:12, and what consequences are derivable either way, are two quite different q