The War between anti-ESVers and anti-TNIVers: My Stand

Not long ago, I began a series of posts (go here for the last installment) in which I compare NJPSV and ESV across Isaiah 38:9-20 in search of silent emendations to the traditional Hebrew text. The ensuing comment thread, however, has been dominated by attacks aimed at ESV unrelated to the subject matter of the posts. As one of the attackers makes clear, the ultimate target is not the ESV translation per se, but those like J. I. Packer who praise ESV and attack TNIV.

Suzanne notes that J. I. Packer has written a tract entitled Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters. Presumably I am to be appalled by this, given that I support the ordination of women. But I am not appalled. I have many friends, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, evangelical, and Orthodox Jewish, who do not support the ordination of women. I do not pick friends or make enemies based on this issue. I know where I stand, but I have the unpleasant ability – or Pollyannish tendency, take your pick – of seeing a grain of truth, sometimes more than a grain, in positions I do not hold. A Manichaean approach to this and many other issues has never appealed to me.

It all started when I put up a post announcing the upcoming ESV Study Bible, among whose contributors are many scholars whose work I have read with profit. In consequence, I was repeatedly taken to task by Iyov and Suzanne. Both of these bloggers consider it an impeachable offense if someone fails to espouse their anti-ESV line. It is their prerogative to be as stridently anti-ESV as they wish. But if I must be treated as if I have gone over to the dark side because I merely prefer TNIV to ESV, but refuse to join the ranks of the anti-ESVers, I suggest something has gone wrong.

If it is a crime to think that both ESV and TNIV are fine though far from perfect translations, each of which is suitable for the use of individuals and congregations, I stand condemned. If it is a crime to think both TNIV and ESV are also monuments to the agendas of people on opposite sides of a culture war, a culture war, however, in which the truth has not been fully grasped by either side, but shredded into pieces, with unholy fragments retained by each side, once again, I stand condemned.

I conclude by quoting Proverbs 27:5-6

טוֹבָה תּוֹכַחַת מְגֻלָּה       מֵאַהֲבָה מְסֻתָּרֶת

נֶאֱמָנִים פִּצְעֵי אוֹהֵב        וְנַעְתָּרוֹת נְשִׁיקוֹת שׂוֹנֵא

Better open reproof

than feigned love.

Trustworthy are blows from a friend,

deceitful are kisses from a foe. (NJB)

But what do you do when someone declares the friendship over after receiving the blows?

NJPSV = New Jewish Publication Society Version

ESV = English Standard Version

TNIV = Today’s New International Version

NJB = New Jerusalem Bible

Comments

[Suzanne]

I am saddened to see you escalate what was supposed to be a discussion of fact into a name-calling session.

If you did not wish to know what was in the statement of concern against the TNIV, then perhaps you should not have asked me to comment on that. I responded to your request thinking that that was what you wanted, but I understand now that it was a rhetorical flourish.

Since you have not responded to that discussion specifically may I presume that you do not agree with the content of that statement.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

you do not have to presume anything. I have been clear that I am not anti-TNIV nor anti-ESV. How much clearer do I need to be?

[Eric]

There's something I can't put my finger on about waging debates on the internet that can lead to a one-up-person-ship that gets out of proportion with the issues discussed. I think the most that I could say of any of the major translations when read over the course of Genesis to Revelation might be that there miniscule differences in the level of just how much spiritual good they can do for a believer, all of them being the wonderful treasure of the Word of God (emphasis on the words "most," "might," and "miniscule"). I recall having to pull myself away from one of those translation websites where I got into a lengthy debate in which my own position was merely that I believe the word aner in Greek is not gender-neutral, but that the places where the TNIV translates it as such are rather innocuous inaccuracies. I thought I was being even-handed. But before long I found myself being a whole lot like this guy:
http://xkcd.com/386/

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Eric, for putting things in perspective.

[Justin (koavf)]

John,

A cursory glance shows that you haven't discussed your rationale about the ordination of women. I'd like to read about it if you have the wherewithal to write about it.

-JAK

[JohnFH]

I'll do that someday, Justin. Thanks for the invite.

[Jeremy Pierce]

John, I don't think it's mere name-calling to recognize that someone can have a vendetta against a translation but that others can merely prefer one to another while respecting both. As someone who respects both of these but prefers the ESV, I have often spent many fruitless hours trying to convince people that their anti-ESV arguments often go way too far and involve conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence, sometimes reading the mistakes and motives of a small but influential few into the entire translation team of the ESV. So I have to agree with your assessment of the situation, and I don't think it amounts to name-calling.

[JohnFH]

Jeremy, thanks for making my point better than I did.

[Suzanne]

Eric,

On aner, is it possible that you are unaware of the extensive gender neutral use of aner in classical Greek. Here is one of many examples.

ποτὲ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γίγνοιτ' ἄν, τὴν ἀνθρώπῳ προσήκουσαν ἀρετὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἔχων .... , εἴτε ἄρρην τις των συνοικούντων οὖσα ἡ φύσις εἴτε θήλεια, νέων ἢ γερόντων

… in which a member of our community-- be he of the male or female sex, young or old,-- may become a good citizen (aner), possessed of the excellence of soul which belongs to man (anthropos). Plato's Laws 6. 770d.

As a classics student it makes me sad to see that the TNIV translators were taken to task for translating aner in a gender neutral way, since there is a long and well established tradition for this in Greek. I can supply many more such quotes.

When you say these are "innocuous inaccuracies" in th TNIV, you think of yourself as even-handed. However, the truth is that they are not inaccuracies at all. I simply want people to recognize that the statement against the TNIV actually contains information which has been misleading.

[Kevin Sam]

I'm with you on this too John and feel for you. Though I understand Suzanne's and Iyov's position, I never rail on any translation and refuse to do so even if they might be inconsistent in their gender-neutral renderings. There are mistakes in all translations-TNIV, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, etc, but I find all these major translations still reliable because they still communicate the living word in scripture.

[Suzanne]

I hope that my attempt to clarify the matter on aner is not taken negatively.

[JohnFH]

Kevin Sam,

I'm with you all the way. I want very much to see translations improved, not in one way but many.

In the meantime, let's make the best use of the ones we have. It should be possible to derive all important doctrines from any translation of scripture. It is indeed so, so far as I can see.

[Suzanne]

But what do you do when someone declares the friendship over after receiving the blows?

You tell me John. You have made a very public statement about our longstanding friendship. You tell me why you are behaving this way.

[J. K. Gayle]

J. I. Packer has written a tract

What if it were this:

"My friend Beppe notes that J. I. Packer has written a tract entitled Let's Stop Making Italians Presbyters. Presumably I am to be appalled by this, given that I support the ordination of Italians. But I am not appalled. I have many friends, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, evangelical, and Orthodox Jewish, who do not support the ordination of Italians. I do not pick friends or make enemies based on this issue. I know where I stand, but I have the unpleasant ability – or Pollyannish tendency, take your pick – of seeing a grain of truth, sometimes more than a grain, in positions I do not hold. A Manichaean approach to this and many other issues has never appealed to me."

?

[JohnFH]

I would just say, Suzanne, that I still wish to remain your friend. Those are my sentiments, and I feel it is a good thing to model that kind of unbreakable commitment, despite a serious disagreement, in public.

[JohnFH]

Kurk,

Thanks for pursuing me on this. Your analogy shows the limitations of my reasoning, which I do not deny.

But tell me, the alternative, that of making the issue of women's ordination a matter of status confessionis, is that how you go about making friends and enemies in life?

[Doug Chaplin]

Hmm, but isn't Packer on the way to making the ordination of women exactly this kind of issue, just as he has already made the ordination of gay people this kind of issue. Moreover, whatever the (de)merits of the ESV, I understood it to be the case that it's production was largely a reaction to the NIV embracing gender-neutral language. Its origins and translation policy are shaped by these concerns. It may or may not have transcended them. Personally I feel it hasn't, and is largely pedestrian. Equally, as you know, irrespective of these issues, I won't use any translation as a main Bible that declines to translate the apocryphal / deutero-canonical books.

[JohnFH]

Doug,

is that what Packer is doing? I honestly do not know. What was the status quo ante? Did his diocese once allow diversity of opinion and practice on the issue of women's ordination, but now, those who are against are being given the boot? That was the impression I got from a piece by Peter Kirk in which he protests the treatment of Packer. It is almost impossible for an outsider to understand the dynamics of these feuds.

As I see it, ESV is a reaction to a trend within Christianity which has included everything from a tendency to say "brothers and sisters" rather than "brethren," to substituting "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" for the traditional Trinitarian formula, to preaching on "Christa," besides the issue of the ordination of women as presbyters and bishops. All of these things can and do go together - I know, I serve in a United Methodist context. ESV is a reaction to all that, an over-reaction, in my opinion.

One might counter-argue that TNIV is an over-reaction in its own way to trends in linguistic culture. I think that's true, but not to the same extent.

However, people identify translations with causes, not with the contents of the translations themselves. They are the expressions of particular ideological agendas, as I pointed out. So then the question becomes, should the cause of the culture war be understood as status confessionis in nature?

I try to understand the reasons why people on both sides of the polarization think so, while disagreeing with both.

[Peter Kirk]

John, I don't fully, or anything like it, understand the dynamics of these feuds. But Packer has just left a diocese which (as I understand it) tolerates no diversity of opinion on such issues, that is, it requires its ministers not only to support ordination of women but also to perform gay marriages.

Packer has joined a new province which does not ordain women. But the irony of the situation is that that new province licensed some already ordained women at the same time as Packer, so is now no longer a province without women priests. I presume Packer accepts this situation, as at least his own viewpoint is now tolerated.

[Suzanne]

Thank you, Peter,

The present events in the Anglican Church of Canada has little to do with the ordination of women.

As you know the Anglican Communion has several levels of governance, national, provincial, diocesan and congregational.

The Anglican Church of Canada has ordained women since 1976, when John and I were both at the U. Of Toronto. As far as I am aware this has not been an issue in Canada.

Anglican women ministers are as likely to be white-haired little old ladies as much as anything else. Women were licensed as layreaders in British Columbia during and after WWII so it was a common sight in isolated areas to see a woman in the pulpit and it was much appreciated.

Florence Li Tim Oi, ordained in China in WWII later lived in Toronto and was a testimony to the service that Anglican women offer the church. This has a long and continuous tradition and women have been highly respected in the Anglican Church.

In the local church that I attended women had also been welcome in the pulpit. One occasional speaker was Cathie Nicoll, a long-time Inter Varsity worker who received the Order of Canada. She was a mentor of my mother and a much respected Bible teacher.

However, about 10 years ago the local congregational climate changed toward women. The priest was from the diocese of Sydney and Jim Packer was an honourary assistant.

After Cathie Nicoll passed away, I believe that no other women ever stood in the pulpit on a Sunday morning. This was a deliberate decision of the priest although I am not sure that the congregation was ever consulted on this practice. It is contrary to the expectations of Canadian Anglicans.

However, the ministerial staff of this church made known their discomfort with women in positions of authority to the diocesan staff. Since Dr. Packer and the priest are both non-Canadians, I am sure that this played a part in their views on women not being found acceptable to the diocesan staff. It would normally be a condition of employment in the ACC to accept women as equals in ministry. It simply did not occur to anyone at the time that someone coming in from outside would bring with them a view of women not equal in function.

When a group of churches broke off to form the Anglican Network over same-sex blessing, churches which had women ministers were not excluded from joining. The two Canadian Anglican Network bishops have been overtly welcoming to women.

So this is the current situation.

The Province of the Southern Cone does not ordain women priests. The two Canadian Anglican Network bishops have accepted ordained women into the group and licensed them. The church which Dr. Packer attends does not ordain women.

We have yet to see whether women will be ordained in the Network. My expectation is that the bishops Harvey and Harding will ordain women, but Dr. Packer's church will not. The province of the Southern Cone gave a hand of fellowship to Canadian female priests yesterday.

What grieves me is that when I first attended the church which Dr. Packer also attends women were allowed to preach there. That was one reason that I was happy to attend that church. In the time that I spent there I was distressed by the theological, although not social, marginalization of women.

I was dismayed by the move towards preaching the submission of women without having a safe house and abuse ministry already in place. There seemed to be a very low awareness of abuse issues.

I was dismayed by Dr. Packer's signature on the anti-TNIV statement. I was dismayed by the stated interest in investing in the ESV Bible in which adam was always translated as "man" in order to justify the secondary representation of women and their subordination to male headship. I was dismayed by a priest who recommended to me articles by Wayne Grudem without his being aware that the evidence did not always support the conclusions.

I am happy to now attend a small local Anglican congregation where the scripture is read and the gospel is preached and secondary issues are not a matter of dispute.

I hope this helps. It is not my intention to make any critique of events in the ACC beyond those which affected me personally, the marginalization of women in one particular local venue.

[JohnFH]

That's amazing, Peter. I'm sure Packer is not without his own faults, but surely these are dark days for the Anglican communion.

[JohnFH]

Thanks, Suzanne, for a detailed and sensitive account.

[Suzanne]

John,

There is documented evidence that the ESV is a reaction specifically to the Inclusive NIV and the TNIV.

I do not know what the TNIV is a reaction to, nor am I aware of any reason to critique the gender language of the TNIV on any basis other than stylistic. My understanding is that the TNIV is an attempt at gender accuracy.

I think that if we looked at some of these details carefully and in a measured fashion we could dissipate some of the misconceptions which one so often reads, such as the notion that aner must have a male semantic component.

We could work through some of the linguistic issues and clear the air. We would need to stick close to the facts and follow each others arguments carefully and graciously.

[Suzanne]

My further comment in response to Peter is that the ordination of women was well established before Dr. Packer came to Canada. However, since Dr. Packer and the present priest have been here there has been a distinct move in their church away from ordaining women. They were not forced to accept a woman in the pulpit.

On the issue of same-sex blessing, it is much more complex and I am sympathic to certain aspects of both sides. However, only 8 out of 67 parishes in this diocese had performed a same sex blessing over a period of 6 years.

I cannot agree with Peter's assessment that Dr. Packer and his associates were in any imminent danger personally of having to either ordain women or perform same sex blessings. It is complex but not exactly as you perceive it. I do understand why they left.

[JohnFH]

Suzanne,

You make it sound as if TNIV, its translation team, and those who use it live in the land of objectivity, untouched by the culture wars that continually swirl through Christianity and beyond. This is not true.

TNIV is the expression of a ideological agenda. Indeed, it is the expression of more than one. I remember being in Ann Arbor, at Calvin College, on one of the first occasions it was discussed, still no more than a glimmer in the eyes of its future parents, at an SBL meeting. The proposal was savaged in that context by none other than James Barr. Is James Barr a reactionary? Hardly.

The ESV is also the expression of not one but several ideological agendas. Furthermore, Jeremy Pierce's remarks upthread are accurate, as anyone can attest who knows some of the ESV translators personally. If you do not qualify your statements on this, Suzanne, you end up mischaracterizing the positions of many people. You quote Grudem ad nauseam. But Grudem, in his books, speaks for himself, not for the ESV translation team as a whole. The distinction is important.

Both translations were and are subject to the forces of cultural polarization. I resist your attempts to put the ideological shoe on one foot only.

For example, some people who worked on TNIV did so out of a commitment to a middle-of-the road dynamic equivalence approach to Bible translation. Some people who worked on ESV did so out of a commitment to an "essentially literal" translation approach. I'm sure you will agree: it makes no sense to call one of these approaches reactionary and the other non-reactionary. The new ZB takes an "essentially literal" approach of sorts, but was produced by quite liberal people, as I'm sure you can imagine.

Among both TNIV and ESV translation team members, there are quite a number of people who belong to churches which do not allow diversity of opinion on the question of ordination of women, i.e., it's not allowed. Many belong to branches of Christendom which do not display the kind of openness to the ordination of women that the diocese of which Packer has become a part does.

Please do not assume that Grudem and/or Polythress speak for the people who contributed to the ESV revision of RSV, or in the upcoming ESV Study Bible. I imagine there are many who, like me (I am happy to recommend ESV, though I prefer TNIV, as I've said before), tend to agree with some things they say, and disagree with others. That is certainly my situation.

No, I'm not interested in specifying what my agreements and disagreements are in detail. I have better things to do. My positions on most of the more important issues are public already. I have no desire to join your crusade against them, a crusade I'm afraid may very well be counter-productive.