Brothers Bayly

« ESV Origin.... | Main | The history of the English Standard Version... »

Saturday, 25 February 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d09d69e200d834f3362953ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ben Witherington's boring discovery...:

Comments

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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)

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

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

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?

>>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.

> 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.

>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,

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

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.

>>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,

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Joe Bayly's books

Top ten reading on sex

Send Tim an e-mail

Wikipedia Affiliate Button

Site Meter