Ben Witherington's boring discovery...

A United Methodist professor at Asbury Theological Seminary named Ben Witherington keeps a blog, and this past Monday he posted a piece titled, "The Problem with the ESV."  Witherington is a run-of-the-mill feminist trying hard to hold on to an evangelical commitment to the authority of Scripture while at the same time pushing the very thing explicitly forbidden by God--namely, women exercising authority over men. As men falling into this error go, Witherington strikes me as being in the "That's not what Paul really meant" camp. None of the honesty of the late Paul King Jewett who was man enough to say, essentially, "Yeah, Paul said it and Paul was wrong."

Speaking personally, I always admired Jewett for his courage. If my son's going to disobey me, I'd rather he did it like a man: "Yes, Dad, I know you told me to come straight home from youth group but I stopped and had a frappuccino with Emily. I disobeyed you and I'm sorry." Woe betide him if he tries to lie his way out of it: "But Dad, I know how important Emily's and my sexual purity is to you and we figured Starbucks was a good public place for us to sit and talk. You do want us to avoid being alone, don't you? I mean, when it comes to weighing which you care more about--me coming straight home or sexual purity--don't you think I made the right choice?"

But back to Rev. Dr. Witherington. Breathlessly, he reported the following New Information this past Monday...

Breathlessly, he reported the following New Information this past Monday...

I was having an e-chat with a member of the TNIV committee and he chronicled for me the story of how the ESV came into being. It was troubling in the extreme, and shows the ideological biases that led to its creation. I will allow this TNIV committee member to remain anonymous so he is not vilified and may fight his own battles should he choose to do so, but something needs to be said.

The ESV we owe chiefly to one particular scholar who has spent much of his career opposing the idea of women being involved in ministry. I am told that this scholar did everything he could possibly do to scuttle the TNIV, in the main because he abhorred the idea of the use of inclusive language... [Ben Witherington goes on to assure his readers that this unnamed scholar is such a misogynist he can't conceive of] women present (in the New Testament) who were not mere ciphers or appendages of the men who were there.

This scholar sought, and obtained a hearing before the TNIV committee years ago, and when it would not acquiesce to his demands that inclusive language NOT be used in the TNIV, it is my understanding that the process was then set in motion to buy the rights to the old RSV, make a few significant interpretive changes of a conservative sort, and then put this out under a new name (the English Standard Version) although it was almost entirely a retreading of the old RSV.

Now let me get this straight. A feminist scholar who was paid by Zondervan to do a feminist revision of the New International Version told Dr. Witherington that the English Standard Version had its origin in the work of another evangelical scholar who opposes feminism and Dr. Witherington found this information "troubling in the extreme?" You've got to be kidding me--"troubling in the extreme"?

When feminist ideologues on the TNIV committee such as Gordon Fee change the text of God's Word to minimize or delete Its patriarchal language and theology, how exactly did they think men faithful to Scripture's patriarchal language and theology would respond? Did they think we had taken vows to guard the good deposit for nothing? Did they think there were no faithful prophets left in Israel who would speak the truth? Did they think their corruption would go unanswered?

But oh, Dr. Witherington breathlessly reports the very account told him by Dr. Fee (or some other member of the TNIV committee) and he just assumes everyone who reads his secondhand account will see this unnamed misogynist scholar's actions as a nefarious plot rather than an act of godly courage.

Well of course we all know the unnamed scholar being pilloried by Dr. Fee (or one of his colleagues) and excoriated by Dr. Witherington is none other than the indefatigable Dr. Wayne Grudem who for many years now has chosen to honor God and to fight for the biblical doctrine of patriarchy (or what he prefers to call it, "complementarianism").

When Wayne fought the neutering of the NIV, it was not to his condemnation but to his everlasting credit. And a large part of the reason he fought it was his understanding that the subversion of the patriarchal text of Scripture would further the Evil One's designs to subvert not just the complementarity of the sexes, but finally the Arechetypal Fatherhood of God.

Later, when it became clear that the long term submission to Scripture's authority on the part of Zondervan and the International Bible Society (copyright holder of the NIV) could no longer be trusted, Dr. Grudem joined forces with other evangelical leaders and scholars to plan, raise the money for, and do the hard work of a new Bible translation.

Quickly, men of international scholarly reputation such as J. I. Packer and Vern Poythress joined the work and a publisher with unquestioned integrity in all matters related to the issue of Scripture's patriarchal language and theology was found--Crossway Publishers in Wheaton. And now, years later, we have the Bible birthed from that controversy, the excellent English Standard Version.

In a comment posted earlier this evening under my brother's post, ESV origin...," Fr. Bill Mouser provided a link to an old article published in the June 5, 1999 issue of "World" titled, "Decline of the NIV: Two new Bible translations and one revised one take the spotlight." The article was co-authored by David and me and it remains an accurate summary of the things under debate:

The second translation hoping to pick up some of the Bible share lost by the NIV is the English Standard Version (ESV), announced in February by Crossway Books. The version had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day's strategy. During the course of the evening it became clear their concerns with the NIV extended beyond gender issues. The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version, first published in 1952 by the National Council of Churches and recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.

Some months later, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations with the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. An agreement was reached in September 1998 allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary...

Although Crossway does not want its translation thrust linked to "Stealth Bible" concerns, feminists were quick to notice connections between the Crossway team and the conservative Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's critics of a regendered NIV. "This is not a CBMW project," said CBMW president Wayne Grudem.

To some it may be confusing that Crossway would deny the ESV's inception in the gender-neutral Bible controversy, but it's natural for corporate marketing departments to keep new product rollouts as far away from controversy as possible. The investment required for a major national rollout of the English Standard Version is many, many millions and the risk of failure is huge. Why buy trouble?

But let's remember Hudson Taylor's exhortation, "God's work done in God's way will never lack God's supplies."

So yes, Dr. Witherington, you're right: not just one, but several new Bibles were helped along the way by men opposed to the emendation and deletion of Scripture's patriarchal language by your friend and his colleagues who, for their work of destruction, were well paid by Zondervan and the International Bible Society.

But then again, no, Dr. Witherington, you're wrong. Not one of these men was ever engaged in a nefarious plot. Rather, they each acted with godly courage.

And at the beginning when almost no one was prepared to stand against the juggernaut of evangelical corporations and scholars on their payroll who had assembled to attack anyone who dared to criticize their destruction of Scripture, there were a few brave hearts who stood faithfully, holding up God's standard. Yes, it was that clear--I was there and saw it with my own eyes. And to this day my heart feels a rush of pride as I recall the work of the Holy Spirit through those men and women--three of whom I will single out as especially worthy of our praise: Vern Poythress, Wayne Grudem, and Mrs. Marvin (Susan) Olasky.

May God give us many more such men and women who have courage and are willing to stand in godly opposition to the spirit of our age. Feminism is a heresy and it must be rooted out of the Bride of Christ.

* * *
(Note:When this article first ran in World, a Christian leader demanded World issue a retraction denying the substance of what David and I had written in the paragraphs above. Since I personally was a participant in the events recorded, I was able to provide sufficient documentation that any question concerning David's and my accuracy was removed. Copies of that documentation remain in my possession.)

Comments

[Fr. Bill]

Profuse patriarchal greetings, Tim,

For what it's worth (probably not much), after I read your post here last night, I wandered back over to Mr. Witherington's blog to see how things were stewing. I found at that moment the comment to his post "The Problems with the ESV" had collected 82 comments.

I clicked on the comment section and scrolled to the bottom, curious if this blog's discussion had been factored into the mix. I couldn't tell for sure, but I did notice that Wayne Grudem made an appearance there, to which Witherington had responded. What transpired there, I cannot tell because ...

My 16-year old daughter arrived here at home with her friends, and that took my attention away from the internet as I greeted them. After visiting with them for a bit, my wife prevailed upon me to begin reading out loud the next novel in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin naval adventures. By the time that enjoyable activity concluded, it was late.

Now, this morning, I go back to satisfy my curiosity, and I find that Mr. Witherington has removed the entire post and all its comments from his blog.

Now, I'm really curious!

Fr. B

[Fr. Bill]

Poking a bit more around Mr. Witherington's blog, I ran across one he wrote in mid-December last year entitled "Buying a Bible at Christmas?" (http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2005/12/buying-bible-at-christmas.html)

In this entry, Mr. Witherington names the ESV alongside the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation as a Bible to avoid. Later in the comments, when two commenters challenge him on this, he says the following

"Thanks to both of you who wrote me further about the ESV. I will have to take a more close look it. I don't put it in the same slot as the JW translation, but I simply would not recommend it. I do know the process that went into producing it and was not impressed, but it deserves a closer look than I have given it thus far."

Witherington says more than he probably intended here. He presents himself in his initial blog entry as evaluating various English translations of the Bible on their merits. And, yet, when it comes to the ESV, it is not its merits that matter, but what he supposes is the "process that went into producing it."

To read Witherington you'd think the TNIV (which is his favorite) had no agenda that governed its translation philosophy, especially its guidelines with respect to the gendered language of the original texts.

Fr. B

[Brandon]

Tim,

Thanks for the post. It was a joy to read. As an ESVer myself, I was quite taken aback by Witherington's analysis of the ESV and its creation. What especially amused me was his attempt to say that evangelicals should hate the ESV since it was based off the evil RSV (which was apparently burned by various groups in the 50s). So what? The ESV website specifically states that they took the "non-Christian" interpretations and interpreted them correctly. Anyway, see you tomorrow, brother!

[Joseph Bayly]

Check out the following link for some of what Wayne Grudem wrote on Ben Witherington's blog (the missing post).

http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/02/grudem-responds-to-witherington.html

[mp]

What do you know about the Better Bibles Blog? They seem quite excited about this so-called ESV controversy. They also seem to be hitting J. I. Packer hard, (especially a Ms. McCarthy who wants ESV to apologize for the Statement of Concern) claiming that Packer wouldn't tell her to her face that a woman couldn't be a presbyter and posting a series of links regarding his comments on ESV, etc. And, man-o-man, they even believe that feminism has been good for women and the church and that secular society treats women better. One of their comments even extolls the recitude of Star Trek in switcthing to gender inclusive language.

[Fred Greco]

Tim and David,

This battle is a critical one, and one of the main reasons that I believe that pastors MUST have a working knowledge (not necessarily fluency) of the original languages.

It is good and important that there are scholars such as Poythress and Grudem who can point out the TNIV's liberties -- but better yet if pastors can do it for their flock. (David and I once had an interesting discussion after one Presbytery about Greek and Hebrew, he may recall)

[David Bayly]

Dear Fred,

Sorry, brother, but this issue has nothing to do with Greek or Hebrew.

If your statement were true, laymen could not understand the issue. But it's very much not an issue requiring expert knowledge to understand or judge. That's why it became such a public cause celebre.

Your brother in Christ,

David

[Fred Greco]

David,

It actually does, at least as I see it. The way that we *know* that the TNIV is wrong to translate "Jewish leaders" instead of "Jews," or "those" instead of "the man" in Psalm 1:1 is because the original language tells us beyond doubt that the translation is wrong and points us to an ulterior motive.

I don't doubt that this is an issue that laymen can understand - because of faithful translations of the original languages for centuries - but the fact is that the best defense against such doctrinal perversions (in my opinion) is a ministry that is fully aware of the text of final appeal (WCF 1.8)

Your brother and friend,

Fred

[Mike]

What if the so-called "feminist scholar" in question was actually of the complementarian scholars who participated on the TNIV committee?

Because there were a number of complementarian scholars (e.g. Bruce Waltke).

Isn't it a bit unfair to make such an assumptive?

Or have you already decided by default that anyone on the TNIV committee, regardless of whether they're a complementarian or not is by definition a feminist scholar?

[Tim Bayly]

>>Or have you already decided by default that anyone on the TNIV committee, regardless of whether they're a complementarian or not is by definition a feminist scholar?

Actually, yes. Otherwise, they would have resigned in protest against the emendation of God's Word being done under the aegis of their committee. Deleting Scripture's Greek and Hebrew words that egalitarian feminists find offensive is an ideological act of simple clarity.

[Mike]

> Deleting Scripture's Greek and Hebrew words that
> egalitarian feminists find offensive is an ideological
> act of simple clarity.

You sound like a KJV-only guy talking about 1 John 5:8.

Last time I checked, all translations delete the
Greek and Hebrew words. But that's not the point, is it? What you actually meant is that they have chosen to translate Greek and Hebrew words into English with English words that you don't like. But then again, I'm sure it easier to convince the layman you're right when you're simply talking about deleting God's words from God's scripture, rather than talking about complexities of lexicography - which 99.999% of pastors don't understand themselves.

[Tim Bayly]

>complexities of lexicography - which 99.999% of pastors don't understand themselves.

Yes, yes, Mr. Mike. I'm an idiot. Stupid. Can't wrap my tiny brain around complexities that smart men who talk loudly in restaurants and use big words are able to understand. This linguistics thing is so very hard to understand--very, very hard. Complexitities of lexicography indeed. Whew! I'm breaking into a sweat. I'd been hoping my ignorance wouldn't be exposed but I can see you're more than a match for me.

Complexities of lexicography.

Folks, let's see if we can wrap our tiny brains around two of Mike's "complexities of lexicography"--namely the Hebrew word 'adam' and the Greek word 'adelphoi.'

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word used for Eve's husband is the same Hebrew word used for the race bearing the Image of God: 'adam.' The race was named by God with the same name He gave to the first man--namely, "Adam" and "adam."

But brilliant intellectuals like Mike hate God's nomenclature and cut the word 'man' (which all previous generations of pastors have used to translate this Hebrew word 'adam' when speaking of the race) out of their Bibles.

Same with the simple word 'adelphoi' in the New Testament eplistles. This is the word used to refer to both men and women in the Church of Jesus Christ. But men like Mike hate women being included in this word 'brothers' in the Greek, so they remove the word from our English Bibles and claim "complexities of lexicography."

So our brilliant intellectuals are simply engaging in PC manipulation of language. Anyone surprised? But in this particularly case, it's the very Word and words of God they're deleting.

Men (used inclusively) don't even need a high school degree to understand this thing with perfect clarity. As a matter of fact, only those with graduate degrees are likely not to understand it because of their natural inclination to be obsequious towards people who talk and write about stupid pastors who can't understand the complexities of lexicography.

God named the race "adam"--the same Hebrew word He used as the name for the husband of Eve. He didn't name the race "eve" or "eveadam" or "adameve."

It's true there are many men and women who despise God's language and think it's demeaning for women to be included in the Hebrew "adam" and the Greek "adelphoi."

But then, there have always been men and women who hate God's Word and words. Still, trust Jesus: Heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest "adam" or "adelphoi" will pass away.

Love,

[Kamilla]

Tim,

What has long puzzled me about this translation "game" is that it is only in the post-academic feminism world that this seems to be a problem.

On the other hand, even when I was suffering the infection of religious feminism I was capable of understanding that this "inclusive" language project was about far more than making us gals not feel so left out. If that's all it's about, why do they have to obscure references to Christ (Psalm 1:1 for example).

Kamilla

[Mike]

No need to get defensive and sarcastic. My goodness. I definitely do not think you're an idiot. That is definitely not something I at all wanted to imply. And I apologize if my words appeared as if they did. From what I've read on your blog, I would say you're incredibly intelligent. And I regularly applaud your earnest defense of both scripture and good theology. But that doesn't make you a lexicographer or a linguist.

And neither language or meaning is simple. If it so simple. I'd like to see perhaps a paragraph explanation about what is "meaning." And then perhaps another paragraph explaining how words mean. And a third paragraph about how language, in general, means.

By the way, one of you (on the right in the picture at the top) looks a lot like a theology prof I had back in college at Moody Bible Institute - a good complementarian school if there ever was one...though slightly too dispensational for my tastes.

[Tim Bayly]

>>But that doesn't make you a lexicographer or a linguist.

Dear Mike,

Sorry for dumping the bushel basket on you. My response is better understood to be generic than personal, although that seems stupid since you were the one I was responding to, right? Anyhow, please forgive me for appearing to be responding to you, directly.

But again, you have not responded to the substance of my comment. I've pointed to the Hebrew 'adam' and the Greek 'adelphoi.' Both have centuries of good translation into English behind them, now, and yet men like you want us to think that we need to obscure their meaning starting today. Or yesterday. Why?

Because academics--or rather, good lexicographers and linguists--assure us that, although it's above our pay grade and not easily understood, we simply must. Trust us, they say.

Well, I won't and I don't. After all, English is my native tongue and I understand quite well what these bowdlerizers are trying to bowdlerize.

It's an exceedingly simple thing to translate 'adam' and 'adelphoi' into English. We don't need obfuscations about what the true meaning of 'is' is. Unless, of course, our goal is ideological in nature. Then such discussion would prove very helpful.

For more on this, please see my brother's parable just posted.

In His Word,