Bible Reference Index

Diglot Editions

Dunash ben Labrat

Ali Ahmad Said

Verbal System of Ancient Hebrew

The Bible as seen through the eyes of . . .

« NJPSV versus ESV: which translation adheres more strictly to MT? | Main | Translating Adonay in the Hebrew Bible »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


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.


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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.



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.


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.


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.



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


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.


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.


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?


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?



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.



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.


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.


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,

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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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 questions. Not to put too fine a point on it: whether authentein means 'have authority over' (TNIV) or 'dictate to' (REB) in 1 Tim 2:12 is not nearly as important to decide as questions of a different order, such as, how do we generalize, doctrinally speaking, from a statement in an occasional letter found in the New Testament? What is the larger interpretive framework? How do we go about interpreting one scripture in light of another in a responsible way?


Scott McKnight's point of view, if your summary of it is not misleading, is an admission of defeat. Of course people believe what they want. On everything, all the time. So why make a careful case for anything?

1 Tim 2:11-14 could easily be the subject of an entire monograph (and probably has: I am not a NT specialist, nor a specialist on passages that relate to women in the NT, so I don't know the ins and outs of the secondary lit.) Given the use and abuse to which the passage continues to be put, it would be worth the effort.



I think you wrote this in your sleep. The TNIV has "assume authority over" although "have" is mentioned in the footnotes.

Next, this verse has not been one that I have criticized the ESV for. You introduced 1 Tim. 2:12 to this thread, not me. Please try to deal with reality here.

However, Grudem has publicly criticized the TNIV for the wording "assume authority" calling this phrase a "novel and suspect" translation.

Yet, "assume authority" is virtually the same as "usurp authority" in the KJV. In fact, there is an English Calvin translation, 1560, that has "assume authority." So my only criticism has been that Grudem openly criticized the TNIV for the wording "assume authority."

So yes, my first intent in doing this research was to analyse Grudem's critique of the TNIV. You have confused that with my critique of the ESV. Necessarily two different things. You introduced the TNIV to this thread. Please stay with the facts.


You're right about that: 'have authority' is one of the options listed by TNIV in a footnote. It is not in the main text. I stand corrected.

Clearly you have caught Grudem in an error, since he calls TNIV's 'assume authority' a novel translation when it already appears in the 1560 translation.

However, I still think you should give ESV credit where credit is due, rather than tar and feather it.


I am a single mother with a lot of other issues in my life. I don't have the time. I have written to CBMW and they take down the evidence but they keep up their conclusions. My view right now is that there is not respect for truth anyway. I am tired of people misrepresenting evidence and I don't think that is going to change.

Does truth have any value in Christianity? You tell me. Everyone just wants to defend their position on women. They don't care about anything else, certainly not the evidence.


If there is merit in Belleville's conclusions about authentein, and your own corroborating conclusions, they will eventually be cited or reached independently by other scholars.

But you're right, people of all stripes, Christian and non-Christian, liberal and conservative, tend to pay attention only to conclusions that reinforce their own.

It's a rare bird who does otherwise. But birds of a feather flock together. I wish to be in that number.


You are flocking with the ESV right now. My most pressing concern is that the same personel are involved in the anti TNIV statement which is inaccurate and personally damaging and irresponsible.

Basically I just want the truth to be known.


I will certainly continue to praise ESV for its praiseworthy features.

You are probably right if you are suggesting that most pro-ESV people and most pro-TNIV people are incapable of pointing out excellent aspects of the work of their "opponents." I do not wish to be in their number.


I wish to see the statement against the TNIV taken down. Sometimes being silent about an injustice that you know about is the same thing as going along with the injustice.

There is a difference between not "pointing out the excellent aspects" of someone else's translation, and putting your signature to a statement which bears testimony against your fellow Christians' honest labour.

I simply do not want to be associated with that statement and the signatures beneath it so I had to leave the church I was attending.

I can understand that this statement has not caused you any personal difficulty so you don't mind being associated with it. I feel differently.

I think if more Christians had spoken out and said that they did not want to be associated with this statement, it might have been taken down. Unfortunately, although we knew it was wrong in our church we did not make a formal request to have the members of our congregation who had signed the statement remove their name. I think that was a serious mistake.


Am I the only guy here uninterested in reading-into a text, feminist presuppositions, and modernist egalitarianism? How about reading the early writers (who spoke koine much more naturally and nearer than you or I) on the NT in these places (discerningly, of course) and one finds...not feminist persuasion.

Furthermore, regarding some of the arguments here, am I the only guy who notices these are certainly Jewish ones: and that the Greek is semitic (I liken it to when I'm thinking in spanish but writing in English, or vice versa)? And in that vein, I see complaints of "reading the [Gentile] NT into the OT" as, well, not stupid, or unintellectual or anything insulting, but rather protectionist: after all they're Jewish documents, making Jewish claims, using ancient (pre-Rabbinism protectionist-hermeneutics which often ignore their own Jewish predecessors' writings wherever it's convenient against the Christains) Jewish thought...even the early "Christians" were often, well, Jewish: enough that Akiva and Co. went into overdrive to work against the many Jews who followed the Messiah-Rabbi "Yesu": even to the point of making-up their own (many). I often wonder, since the MT is a product of that same protectionist vein. It reminds me of the arguments over Isaiah 7:14, but the context suggests something miraculous...and even Jewish Bibles publish "the way of a man with an 'almah'" as "virgin", and there's even an example of a cognate tongue with "almah" used in parallelism with the word "virgin" how is this "reading into" the OT, or forcing upon it something foreign, which is rather quite more ancient than many Rabbinical arguments?

As regards "this is note the fifties", why do you complain, Iyov, that women weren't on the translation team...who cares: this sounds to me like the censure-police who troll textbook companies and mandate that blacks, muslims, hindus, active and fit-pictures of old people, and alternative lifestyles be included in every textbook including chemistry: and you'll find "case studies" and "connections" etc. sections barely related to the materials which ensure these are included. Do I care about equal representation of sexes, or of the knowledge behind the work? I'd rather have the qualified over the "fair", not that there aren't women who aren't qualified, but I imagine a work like the NT had more to do with the expertise in the circles those men run in.

And as to complementarianism...the most protective groups, and safest-feeling women (listening to them), I've ever met, though I didn't necessarily agree with all those groups thought...are complementarian: where I've been those men took "you are brothers [and sisters]" seriously enough that they did, in fact, treat those women like sisters (and continue to): and despite that they do affirm and exclude women from teaching or exercising authority over the men, they probably endeavor to create more opportunities for those women than I've seen anyone ever do, oh, and we're (I'm around) fully aware and realize that there are women there who've been sexually abused, molested, mistreated, drugged, raped, in asylums, tread-over like junk, and so on...and affirm the same, and love them the same, and they love it; and they're also highly intelligent! Appeals to emotion over exegesis aren't very appealing: they're rather subjective than obedient to God: of course establishing authority is a possible avenue for abuse...but rather than just authority etc. one must teach God's whole counsel. For a great example, the Laws provided for women who were so much as shamed in name that their husbands were placed under their wive's father's authority...ouch: yet that society was fully patriarchal (if not wholly obedient in respect). As far as the "more image of God" thing goes...male and female were made in the image of God, but rather it says the man is the glory of God, the woman the glory of man...but both are in God's image, and together they do much glory to Him!

Just two cents from a guy who knows a lot less than perhaps practically everyone else that ever reads this blog: thanks for posts Mr. Hobbins.



You write,

Am I the only guy here uninterested in reading-into a text, feminist presuppositions, and modernist egalitarianism? How about reading the early writers (who spoke koine much more naturally and nearer than you or I) on the NT in these places (discerningly, of course) and one finds...not feminist persuasion.

When the Greek says anthropoi (people) I am not interested in the ESV team deciding that in certain cases the Holy Spirit meant "people of both sexes" because women can certainly be saved, and in other cases anthropoi means "men only" because of a certainty women cannot teach. Who are the ESV team to decide that transparency to the Greek has absolutely no value?

Check the ESV 2 Tim. 2:2 and Eph 4:8 and ask why the ESV did what they did, then check the preface and ask if that is transparency.

This is my complaint. Do you find lack of transparency to be a feminist presupposition? People assume that because I am a woman my complaints are feminists presuppositions. This is partly because people prefer to misquote me.

And as to complementarianism...the most protective groups, and safest-feeling women (listening to them), I've ever met, though I didn't necessarily agree with all those groups thought...are complementarian:

I was one of those women. From a close group of friends who have come to me, I could tell you what it feels like to be raped and or beaten, by husband, father, brother or man down the street and have to cover it up in public and smile.

Women are cruel to men, and men are cruel to women. People are cruel to each other. So why does it help to put women under the power of men?



How does the anti-TNIV statement to which you refer differ, in tone and content, from anti-ESV statements you and others have made? I'm probably not the only one reading this thread who has sat out the wrestling match between anti-TNIVers and anti-ESVers.

As for my own views on the TNIV, I made them clear higher up in this thread. I regard it as an excellent middle-of-the-road DE translation. My confirmands receive a copy as a gift from the congregation and we use it in class.


I can't parse your sentences, but I'll take your bait:

As regards "this is note the fifties", why do you complain, Iyov, that women weren't on the translation team...who cares: this sounds to me like the censure-police who troll textbook companies and mandate that blacks, muslims, hindus, active and fit-pictures of old people, and alternative lifestyles be included in every textbook including chemistry: and you'll find "case studies" and "connections" etc. sections barely related to the materials which ensure these are included.

Pardon me, but please show me a single major chemistry textbook that includes "case studies" and "connections" that is "barely related" to science to ensure that Hindus are included. Since, according to you, every chemistry textbook contains such materials, you should be able to answer this query after a quick visit to your local library.

You'll quickly find things are different when you actually read, instead of learning your "facts" from Ben Stein movies.


John H.,

You write,

How does the anti-TNIV statement to which you refer differ, in tone and content, from anti-ESV statements you and others have made? I'm probably not the only one reading this thread who has sat out the wrestling match between anti-TNIVers and anti-ESVers.

1. I am not one of the translators of the TNIV and I am not related to them. The anti-TNIV people are the very translators of the ESV. They lack objectivity.

2. I am not committing gross error.

The anti-TNIV people insist that the TNIV people are wrong because

a) aner cannot mean person.

In fact, Plato said "any citizen (aner) male of female." I emailed this to Grudem via CBMW and he said that he had not had access to this information. I wonder how secret Plato is.

The gender neutral use of aner is also in my 1879 Liddell Scott lexicon. I was aware of all this from my original studies, I did not have to research this as an esoteric fact.

2. because all Bible translations had Man in Gen. 5:2 until the 1980's and the TNIV has "human beings" which is wrong. The TNIV took "Man" out of that verse.

However, the first common translation which has Man in Gen. 5:2 was in 1952, so this is not a factual argument. And I understand that Adam does, in fact, mean human beings. Is that a possible translation for adam, yes or no?

3. because uioi should always be translated as "sons" and not children.

I understand that you do not like children yourself, but do you argue against the Luther translation on that basis?

4. That "assume authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12 is a novel and suspect translation.

As I mentioned there is a Calvin translation, 1560, which uses "assume."

5. Brothers is to be preferred above "brothers and sisters."

However my 1879 Liddell Scott lexicon has "brothers and sisters" as the first entry for adelphoi, not the second.

6. Person and number should be retained in translation.

Frankly you know how the Psalms are spoiled by the loss of the singular second person. Is this a theological argument? Perhaps. I don't know.

7. Autos must be translated as "he", but oudeis can be translated as "no one" and not "no man" because autos has intrinsic masculine semantic content and oudeis does not. Go figure, John.

8. Son of man must be retained, even though we all know that this is a translation of ben enosh, which meant "mortal one". Do you think ben enosh can only be translated as "son of man?"

9. ish must also be translated as man.

In fact, ish, adam, enosh, aner and much of the time anthropos must be translated as "man", in order to give men "prominence, order, leadership, and representation." TNIV and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy, page 148.

If you agree with the editors of the ESV and the anti-TNIV statement, then you give agreement to the agenda of more status, authority and representation for men than for women. You agree that men ought to have more representation and authority than women. That is the agenda, and if you support the ESV you support the agenda against the TNIV, they are the same people and you support their anti-woman agenda. You support an agenda that is removing women from the pulpit and I have witnessed this.

You also support the kind of scholarship which I have proven over and over is simply wrong.

In addition to the faulty statement against the TNIV, which CBMW refuses to take down, the ESV also translates anthropoi improperly and they say that Junia was only "well-known" to the apostles although Chrysostom and the Vamva Bible are completely clear that Junia was a woman apostle. All Greek commentators agree that Junia was a woman apostle. This is simply fact. I don't really care what she did but I don't like the article by Dan Wallace that she was not because is takes words out of a prepositional phrase and mistranslates them to prove a point. I refer you again to Bauckham, Belleville and Epp on the Junia study. It is simply not acceptable.

It is beyond my imagination why anyone would want to be associated with this much faulty scholarship, which has the agenda of removing women from the pulpit. I know this story intimately and this is the purpose. Do you also want to remove women from pulpits? Ask me for any references or quotes.



a more effective approach to preserving the incremental change of recent decades which has increased the ability of women to be in faithful leadership for God and his kingdom is the approach taken by the Majority Report of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. On the basis of ESV's own rendering of 1 Tim 2:12, they argue in favor of conserving those spaces.

The pain which leads to your vitriol is understandable, but the vitriol itself damages the cause you wish to advance.

My family knows what it's like for a woman to be literally pulled out of the pulpit. That happened to Paola when she was pastor of the Waldensian Church on the southernmost tip of Sicily, Pachino. A visiting Pentecostal did it, and he was sincere in so doing. After a moment of surreal bewilderment, the men of Paola's congregation grabbed the man and returned Paola to the pulpit. In the aftermath, we never treated Pentecostal friends any differently, or lambasted their point of view in any way. We continued to live out our ministry according to the discipline of the Waldensian church, which decided to allow women to seek ordination a scant 30 or 40 years ago, and after much dispute.

Paola and I are grateful to be serving in a tradition that allows women in the pulpit. She is a church planter. Her second new church start just bought a building of their own. God has visibly blessed her ministry.

But we also notice that God blesses the ministry of religious denominations that exclude women from the pulpit. I don't know how God gets away with being so un-PC, but he does.


I take it, John, that you are identifying as vitriol the lines that I quote from Grudem on how women should have less status and authority and representation than men. I agree that is what it is.

Would you please indicate if I have made any factual errors, and please quote the exact words that you identify as vitriol. So far you have not pointed out to me any errors of fact.

Let's just talk about what is factual for a few minutes.


The vitriol in your post consists in your "if you are not against them, you are for them" attitude. It casts a pale over your attempts to find ways in which ESV represents a reaction to attempts in other translations, as some have seen it, to force Scripture into agreement with PC guidelines.

Personally, I regard some of ESV's attempts as inaccurate and ham-handed, just as I regard some of the attempts of TNIV or NRSV to be gender-inclusive to be inaccurate and ham-handed.

But I'm not willing to call people on any of the respective translation teams dishonest because that is the case.

Thank you for pointing out examples of inaccuracy that you see in ESV.



I appreciate your honest response.

The problems in the ESV are of particular concern for me since Dr. Packer has written a paper titled Let's Stop Making Women Presbyters and I have seen the effects of that in our church.

However, problems in the ESV have always been a secondary concern for me. My real difficulty is that I see serious inaccuracies in the various statements and books written against the TNIV and signed by the editors of the ESV.

It would be very helpful for me to have you comment on the list that I supplied of the statements that have been made against the TNIV.

I will say very simply that I do not think that the TNIV is perfect and there most certainly are details in the ESV that I prefer. However, I want to ask you if you think that the statement against the TNIV is warranted.

I gave you a summary assembled from the statement of concern, Poythress and Grudem's book and internet comments made by Grudem against the TNIV.

You could respond to my list and then ask for support on any of the details. I hesitate to include a long list of links in a comment.

You comment,

The vitriol in your post consists in your "if you are not against them, you are for them" attitude.

Obviously this was a very realistic comment for me to make because a short stroll from my house brings me into casual contact with Bruce Waltke, Gordon Fee and Jim Packer. I really cannot simply take a neutral attitude after listening to each one of them tell me their personal story with their translation work.

Perhaps the most touching was Dr. Waltke. He is a committed complementarian with whom I find myself able to interact in an open manner. I feel that he has been betrayed in a particularly painful way by his fellow complementarians. He would not want to make any statement about this but as these men approach old age, it is sad for me to see the deep dissent and know that the statement against the TNIV is still active.

This is what Dr. Packer signed,

We cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study, and reading Bible of the Christian community.

If you had members of your congregation who signed that statement, wouldn't you feel concerned? Wouldn't you want to ask them to take their name off? I really thought that it could be done, but evidently not.

My overwhelming emotion is sadness that older Christians think that this is a mature way to act.

You might also find this quote from Dr. Packer from the Vancouver Sun yesterday interesting,

Opening his English Standard Version of the Bible, of which he was chief editor, Packer read out passages from 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, in which the apostle Paul compares "men who lie with men" to drunkards, thieves, slanderers and adulterers, none of whom will enter the kingdom of heaven.

I find his signature on the anti TNIV statement odd in light of this comment.

I hope you can see that I am a parishioner whose faith has been shaken by these events.

My initial involvement had nothing to do with women's issues - I simply couldn't bear to see people treat each other this way.


What you call vitriol is really sadness. Someone needs to openly mourn these things.

Justin Richter


I have studied under Dr. Waltke for the last six months and he has brought this issue up. I know he has some problems with how his friends and Christian community has handled the TNIV. I would even go as far to say that it has hurt him is some ways.

But it is equally as obvious that he still loves his friends that disagree with him. He still treats them with respect because they share the same bond in Christ. Life is messy, scholarship can be painfully difficult, but the Love of Christ has to overcome these things. Dr. Waltke is a great example of this lived out.

Suzanne, I appreciate your comments. And even think much of what you are saying is justified. But I also think that if we do approach this issue that we need to do it in Love. Sometimes in the Church we need justice but I think more often then not we need to mercy. I think this is what John is getting at. If we can't make our arguments with mercy, patience, and love then how is the Church ever going to grow from it. So I understand where you are coming from and I understand why you are passionate. But it can be perceived that you actually disrespect these men. So in the end if you are making a right argument with the wrong heart then it is ultimately destroying what you want to accomplish.


Thank you for concurring with the truth of what I am saying. You talk about mercy. However, I wonder if we are also not embarrassed by some of what has happened. Obviously I have gone to people privately and implored them to make peace. This could have been resolved otherwise.

I have for several years asked for a reversal of the statement of concern without mentioning names. But I have been pushed by John to explain why this is close to home for me.

I am not young and optimistic anymore. This has dragged on for more than ten years. I don't see anyone reconciling in this lifetime. Is that merciful?

In my personal experience women are also not shown mercy. In congregations where women were once on par with men, that pertains not longer. There is a culture of silence for women who live within less than perfect situations.

I don't remember anyone asking the women if we felt more loved now that "women's ministry" was to be restricted to certain times and venues that may or may not be possible for us. No, I don't remember the mercy I received in those situations.

I don't remember anyone announcing to whom we could report abuse if the sermon on the submission of women had a negative effect on our circumstances.

No, I don't remember being on the receiving end of any mercy at all.


I notice that the truth issues around this statement of concern are not being dismissed here as everywhere else. But what are we standing for, truth or mercy, is it a standoff? And on women's issues, mercy is not on offer.

The perceived truth that women are of lesser order, prominence, status and authority (and I quote) has been preached to me. That does not feel like mercy. Does anyone address that? This is the language that this entire discussion is couched in, the lesser importance of women.


Excuse the typo.

I notice that the truth issues around this statement of concern are being dismissed.

Could these be addressed?


Suzanne and Justin,

I have been away all day at a committal with a family and grieving friends. That's why I couldn't respond earlier.

I will try to find time to respond later.



There is absolutely no hurry. The bold letters were simply a reflection of my frustration at my own typo, nothing more. I am very busy also.

If I have made any errors of fact, then it would be a kindness if you corrected me. Otherwise just leave it be.

I understand that both of us are dealing with issues that are personally distressing this weekend. You have my sympathy.


Iyov, Suzanne, John, Justin, and anyone else who might be reading this thread:

I just put up a new post in response to what has gone on in this thread. If you wish to continue the conversation, please comment there.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Google Blogrolls

a community of bloggers

  • Abnormal Interests
    Intrepid forays into realia and texts of the Ancient Near East, by Duane Smith
  • After Existentialism, Light
    A thoughtful theology blog by Kevin Davis, an M. Div. student at University of North Carolina-Charlotte
  • AKMA's Random Thoughts
    by A. K. M. Adam, Lecturer in New Testament at the University of Glasgow
  • alternate readings
    C. Stirling Bartholomew's place
  • Ancient Hebrew Grammar
    informed comment by Robert Holmstedt, Associate Professor, Ancient Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages, Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto, and John Cook, Associate Professor of Old Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary (Wilmore KY)
  • Antiquitopia
    one of the best blogs out there, by Jared Calaway, assistant professor in the Department of Religion at Illinois Wesleyan University.
  • Anumma - Hebrew Bible and Higher Education
    by G. Brooke Lester, Assistant Professor in Hebrew Bible, and Director for Emerging Pedagogies, at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (Evanston IL)
  • Awilum
    Insightful commentary on the Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Charles Halton
  • AWOL - The Ancient World Online
    notice and comment on open access material relating to the ancient world, by Charles Jones of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, New York University
  • Balshanut
    top-notch Biblical Hebrew and Semitics blog by Peter Bekins, Ph. D. student, Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati OH, faculty member, Wright State University (archive)
  • Believing is Knowing
    Comments on things like prophecy, predestination, and reward and punishment from an orthodox Jewish perspective, by David Guttmann
  • Ben Byerly's Blog
    thoughts on the Bible, Africa, Kenya, aid, and social justice, by Ben Byerly, a PhD candidate at Africa International University (AIU), in Nairobi, Kenya working on “The Hopes of Israel and the Ends of Acts” (Luke’s narrative defense of Paul to Diaspora Judeans in Acts 16-20)
  • Berit Olam
    by a thoughtful Matt Morgan, Berkeley CA resident, grad student in Old Testament at Regent University, Vancouver BC (archive)
  • Better Bibles Blog
    Discussion of translation problems and review of English Bible translations by Wayne Leman, Iver Larsen, Mike Sangrey, and others
  • Bibbia Blog
    A Bible blog in Italian and English by former students of the PIB and PUG
  • Bible Background research and commentary
    by Craig Keener, professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary
  • Bible Design & Binding
    J. Mark Bertrand's place
  • BiblePlaces Blog
    a spotlight on the historical geography of the Holy Land, by Todd Bolen, formerly, Assistant Professor at the Israel Bible Extension campus of The Master's College, Santa Clarita CA
  • Biblicalia
    The riches of orthodoxy brought online by Kevin Edgecomb, a seminarian at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology (Brookline MA)
  • Biblische Ausbildung
    by Stephen L. Cook, professor of Old Testament / Hebrew Bible at Virginia Theological Seminary
  • C. Orthodoxy
    Christian, Contemporary, Conscientious… or Just Confused, by Ken Brown, a very thoughtful blog (archive). Ken is currently a Dr. Theol. student at Georg-August-Universität in Göttingen, part of The Sofja-Kovalevskaja Research Group studying early Jewish Monotheism. His dissertation will focus on the presentation of God in Job.
  • Catholic Bibles
    a thoughtful blog about Bible translations by Timothy, who has a degree in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome (Angelicum) and teaches theology in a Catholic high school in Michigan
  • Chrisendom
    irreverent blog with a focus on the New Testament, by Chris Tilling, New Testament Tutor for St Mellitus College and St Paul's Theological Centre, London
  • Claude Mariottini
    a perspective on the Old Testament and current events by a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicagoland, Illinois
  • Codex: Biblical Studies Blogspot
    by Tyler Williams, a scholar of the Hebrew Bible and cognate literature, now Assistant Professor of Theology at The King's University College in Edmonton, Alberta (archive)
  • Colours of Scripture
    reflections on theology, philosophy, and literature, by Benjamin Smith, afflicted with scriptural synaesthesia, and located in London, England
  • Complegalitarian
    A team blog that discusses right ways and wrong ways Scripture might help in the social construction of gender (old archive only; more recent archive, unfortunately, no longer publicly available)
  • Connected Christianity
    a place to explore what it might be like if Christians finally got the head, heart, and hands of their faith re-connected (archive)
  • Conversational Theology
    Smart and delightful comment by Ros Clarke, a Ph.D. student at the University of the Highlands and Islands, at the (virtual) Highland Theological College (archive)
  • Daily Hebrew
    For students of biblical Hebrew and the ancient Near East, by Chip Hardy, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago
  • Daniel O. McClellan
    a fine blog by the same, who is pursuing a master of arts degree in biblical studies at Trinity Western University just outside of Vancouver, BC.
  • Davar Akher
    Looking for alternative explanations: comments on things Jewish and beyond, by Simon Holloway, a PhD student in Classical Hebrew and Biblical Studies at The University of Sydney, Australia
  • Deinde
    News and Discussion by Danny Zacharias
  • Discipulus scripturae
    Nathan Stitt's place
  • Dr. Claude Mariottini
    balanced comment by a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary, Lombard IL
  • Dr. Platypus
    insightful comment by Darrell Pursiful, editor at Smyth & Helwys Publishing, on the New Testament faculty of Mercer University
  • Dust
    A diary of Bob MacDonald's journey through the Psalms and other holy places in the Hebrew Bible
  • Eclexia
    The heart and mind of this Bible and theology blogger sing in unison
  • Eat, Drink, and be Merry
    The journey of a grad student with a love for ancient languages at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (archive)
  • Elizaphanian
    Rev Sam tussles with God, and limps away
  • Emerging from Babel
    Stephen investigates the potential of narrative and rhetorical criticism as a tool for expounding scripture
  • Evangelical Textual Criticism
    A group blog on NT and OT text-critical matters
  • Evedyahu
    excellent comment by Cristian Rata, Lecturer in Old Testament of Torch Trinity Graduate School of Theology, Seoul, Korea
  • Exegetica Digita
    discussion of Logos high-end syntax and discourse tools – running searches, providing the downloads (search files) and talking about what can be done and why it might matter for exegesis, by Mike Heiser
  • Exegetisk Teologi
    careful exegetical comment by Stefan Green (in Swedish)
  • Exploring Our Matrix
    Insightful reflections by James McGrath, ass't. professor of religion, Butler University
  • Faith Matters
    Mark Alter's place
  • Ferrell's Travel Blog
    comments of biblical studies, archaeology, history, and photography by a tour guide of Bible lands and professor emeritus of the Biblical Studies department at Florida College, Temple Terrace (FL)
  • Fors Clavigera
    James K. A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College, thinks out loud.
  • Friar's Fires
    an insightful blog by a pastor with a background in journalism, one of three he pens
  • Gentle Wisdom
    A fearless take on issues roiling Christendom today, by Peter Kirk, a Bible translator
  • Giluy Milta B‘alma
    by Ezra Chwat and Avraham David of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jewish National and Hebrew University Library, Jerusalem
  • He is Sufficient
    insightful comment on Bible translations, eschatology, and more, by Elshaddai Edwards
  • Higgaion
    by Chris Heard, Professor of Religion, Pepperdine University
  • Idle Musings of a Bookseller
    by James Spinti of Eisenbrauns
  • if i were a bell, i'd ring
    Tim Ricchiuiti’s place
  • Imaginary Grace
    Smooth, witty commentary by Angela Erisman (archive). Angela Erisman is a member of the theology faculty at Xavier University
  • James' Thoughts and Musings
    by James Pate, a doctoral student at HUC-JIR Cincinnati
  • Jewish Philosophy Place
    by Zachary (Zak) Braiterman, who teaches modern Jewish thought and philosophy in the Department of Religion at Syracuse University
  • kata ta biblia
    by Patrick George McCollough, M. Div. student, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena CA
  • Ketuvim
    Learned reflection from the keyboard of Jim Getz
  • Kilbabo
    Ben Johnson’s insightful blog
  • Kruse Kronicle - contemplating the intersection of work, the global economy, and Christian mission
    top quality content brought to readers by Michael W. Kruse
  • Larry Hurtado's blog
    emeritus professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology, University of Edinburgh
  • Law, Prophets, and Writings
    thoughtful blogging by William R. (Rusty) Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies as College of the Ozarks and managing editor for Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament
  • Lingamish
    delightful fare by David Ker, Bible translator, who also lingalilngas.
  • Looney Fundamentalist
    a scientist who loves off-putting labels
  • Menachem Mendel
    A feisty blog on rabbinic literature and other Judaica by Michael Pitkowsky, Rabbinics Curriculum Coordinator at the Academy for Jewish Religion and adjunct instructor at Jewish Theological Seminary (New York)
  • mu-pàd-da
    scholarly blog by C. Jay Crisostomo, grad student in ANE studies at ?
  • Narrative and Ontology
    Astoundingly thoughtful comment from Phil Sumpter, a Ph.D. student in Bible, resident in Bonn, Germany
  • New Epistles
    by Kevin Sam, M. Div. student at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon SK
  • NT Weblog
    Mark Goodacre's blog, professor of New Testament, Duke University
  • Observatório Bíblico
    wide-ranging blog by Airton José da Silva, Professor de Bíblia Hebraica/Antigo Testamento na Faculdade de Teologia do CEARP de Ribeirão Preto, Brasile (in Portuguese)
  • Observatório Bíblico
    Blog sobre estudos acadêmicos da Bíblia, para Airton José da Silva, Professor de Bíblia Hebraica / Antigo Testamento na Faculdade de Teologia do CEARP de Ribeirão Preto, SP.
  • Occasional Publications
    excellent blogging by Daniel Driver, Brevard Childs' scholar extraordinaire
  • old testament passion
    Great stuff from Anthony Loke, a Methodist pastor and Old Testament lecturer in the Seminari Theoloji, Malaysia
  • Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Blog
    A weblog created for a course on the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, by James Davila (archive)
  • On the Main Line
    Mississippi Fred MacDowell's musings on Hebraica and Judaica. With a name like that you can't go wrong.
  • p.ost an evangelical theology for the age to come
    seeking to retell the biblical story in the difficult transition from the centre to the margins following the collapse of Western Christendom, by Andrew Perriman, independent New Testament scholar, currently located in Dubai
  • PaleoJudaica
    by James Davila, professor of Early Jewish Studies at the University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland. Judaism and the Bible in the news; tidbits about ancient Judaism and its context
  • Pastoral Epistles
    by Rick Brannan and friends, a conceptually unique Bible blog
  • Pen and Parchment
    Michael Patton and company don't just think outside the box. They are tearing down its walls.
  • Pisteuomen
    by Michael Halcomb, pastor-scholar from the Bluegrass State
  • Pseudo-Polymath
    by Mark Olson, an Orthodox view on things
  • Purging my soul . . . one blog at a time
    great theoblog by Sam Nunnally
  • Qumranica
    weblog for a course on the Dead Sea Scrolls at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, taught by James R. Davila (archive)
  • Ralph the Sacred River
    by Edward Cook, a superb Aramaist
  • Random Bloggings
    by Calvin Park, M. Div. student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton MA
  • Resident aliens
    reflections of one not at home in this world
  • Revelation is Real
    Strong-minded comment from Tony Siew, lecturer at Trinity Theological College, Singapore
  • Ricoblog
    by Rick Brannan, it's the baby pictures I like the most
  • Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
    Nick Norelli's fabulous blog on Bible and theology
  • SansBlogue
    by Tim Bulkeley, lecturer in Old Testament, Carey Baptist College (New Zealand). His Hypertext Commentary on Amos is an interesting experiment
  • Ancient Near Eastern Languages
    texts and files to help people learn some ancient languages in self study, by Mike Heiser
  • Midrash, etc.
    A fine Hebrew-to-English blog on Midrash, by Carl Kinbar, Director of the New School for Jewish Studies and a facultm member at MJTI School of Jewish Studies.
  • Phil Lembo what I'm thinking
    a recovering lawyer, now in IT, with a passion for a faith worth living
  • Roses and Razorwire
    a top-notch Levantine archaeology blog, by Owen Chesnut, a doctoral student at Andrews University (MI)
  • Scripture & Theology
    a communal weblog dedicated to the intersection of biblical interpretation and the articulation of church doctrine, by Daniel Driver, Phil Sumpter, and others
  • Scripture Zealot
    by Jeff Contrast
  • Serving the Word
    incisive comment on the Hebrew Bible and related ancient matters, with special attention to problems of philology and linguistic anthropology, by Seth L. Sanders, Assistant Professor in the Religion Department of Trinity College, Hartford, CT
  • Singing in the Reign
    NT blog by Michael Barber (JP University) and Brad Pitre (Our Lady Holy Cross)
  • Stay Curious
    excellent comment on Hebrew Bible and Hebrew language topics, by Karyn Traphagen, graduate, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia PA (archive)
  • Sufficiency
    A personal take on the faith delivered to the saints, by Bob MacDonald, whose parallel blog on the Psalms in Hebrew is a colorful and innovative experiment
  • The Sundry Times
    Gary Zimmerli's place, with comment on Bible translations and church renewal
  • Sunestauromai: living the crucified life
    by a scholar-pastor based in the Grand Canyon National Park
  • ta biblia
    blog dedicated to the New Testament and the history of Christian origins, by Giovanni Bazzana
  • Targuman
    by Christian Brady, targum specialist extraordinaire, and dean of Schreyer Honors College, Penn State University
  • Targuman
    on biblical and rabbinic literature, Christian theology, gadgetry, photography, and the odd comic, by Christian Brady, associate professor of ancient Hebrew and Jewish literature and dean of the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State
  • The Biblia Hebraica Blog
    a blog about Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, the history of the Ancient Near East and the classical world, Syro-Palestinian archaeology, early Judaism, early Christianity, New Testament interpretation, English Bible translations, biblical theology, religion and culture, philosophy, science fiction, and anything else relevant to the study of the Bible, by Douglas Magnum, PhD candidate, University of the Free State, South Africa
  • The Forbidden Gospels Blog
    by April DeConick, Professor of Biblical Studies, Rice University
  • The Naked Bible
    by Mike Heiser, academic editor at Logos Bible Software
  • The Reformed Reader
    by Andrew Compton, Ph.D. student in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures (focus on Hebrew and Semitic Languages) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
  • The Sacred Page
    a blog written by three Catholic Ph.D.s who are professors of Scripture and Theology: Michael Barber, Brant Pitre and John Bergsma
  • The Talmud Blog
    a group blog on Talmud News, Reviews, Culture, Currents, and Criticism
  • Theological German
    a site for reading and discussing theological German, by Mark Alter
  • theoutwardquest
    seeking spirituality as an outward, not an inward quest, by David Corder
  • This Lamp
    Incisive comment on Bible translations in the archives, by Rick Mansfield
  • Thoughts on Antiquity
    By Chris Weimer and friends, posts of interest on ancient Greek and Roman topics (archive). Chris is a graduate student at the City University of New York in Classics
  • Threads from Henry's Web
    Wide-ranging comment by Henry Neufeld, educator, publisher, and author
  • Tête-à-Tête-Tête
    smart commentary by "smijer," a Unitarian-Universalist
  • Undeception
    A great blog by Mike Douglas, a graduate student in biblical studies
  • What I Learned From Aristotle
    the Judaica posts are informative (archive)
  • Bouncing into Graceland
    a delightful blog on biblical and theological themes, by Esteban Vázquez (archive)
  • Weblog
    by Justin Anthony Knapp, a fearless Wikipedian (archive)
  • Writing in the Dust
    A collection of quotes by Wesley Hill, a doctoral student in New Testament studies at Durham University (UK), and a Christian who seeks the charism of chastity
  • גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב
    by David Miller, Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Judaism, Briercrest College & Seminary, Caronport, Saskatchewan, Canada
  • ואל-תמכר
    Buy truth and do not sell: wisdom, instruction, and understanding - a blog by Mitchell Powell, student of life at the intersection of Christ, Christianity, and Christendom
  • משלי אדם
    exploring wisdom literature, religion, and other academic pursuits, by Adam Couturier, M.A. in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible (graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)

Viewing Documents

  • Adobe Acrobat Reader
    To view the documents on this blog you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you do not have this, download it from the link above.
Blog powered by Typepad



  • Ancient Hebrew Poetry is a weblog of John F. Hobbins. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect those of his professional affiliations. Unless otherwise indicated, the contents of Ancient Hebrew Poetry, including all text, images, and other media, are original and licensed under a Creative Commons License.

    Creative Commons License

    Copyright © 2005 by John F Hobbins.