I am a friend of Wayne Grudem (and Stan Gundry), but I find the recent radio interview in which Wayne Grudem sallied forth against the TNIV to be indiscriminately unfair and would like to throw my hat in with Stan Gundry's response. See this link. (I apologize to Stan for slipping on this, for when I posted this at 2am my time, I had "Bob" Gundry, Stan's brother. Sorry.)
In my previous posts on translation theory (see categories), I discussed that a translation is judged by its purpose and audience, and the TNIV wanted to be more inclusive because language can be unintentionally (and intentionally) exclusive, and this translation operated with that purpose. That purpose -- to make the Word of God clear and unambiguous -- has been served well.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Wow, I am over my head and awed to be a part of this conversation. But I know it's open to us all.
Gerald, I find your website very interesting and believe there is plenty I can learn from it as I consider your views with reference to the topics you're covering. I'll be following your posts on this topic you bring up.
Scot, I much appreciate what you have to share. I know (as always) there is much more for me to study and seek to understand.
Gerald (again), It appears that I was overstating it when I indicated that the majority of the CBT is complementarian. Somehow I got that in my head. But they are still at least a significant portion of their number. Quoting from D.A. Carson's "The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea For Realism": "At the very least...all sides should recognize that the CBT members include both complementarians and egalitarians." (p 28) "...not a few of the CBT translators are complementarians." (p 107) "I do not personally know all of the members of the CBT, but I know quite a few of them. Some of them are among the godliest, most competent, experienced, mature thinkers and scholars I know- and not a few of them are complementarians to boot." (p 195) From Christianity Today website (unfortunately I could not get the whole article and missed at least a quote from Dr. John Stek- one has to subscribe to get some of the articles on that site): "'The majority [of CBT translators, my addition, understood in context] would probably understand 1 Timothy 2:12 as prohibiting women from serving as pastors?and that's where I stand,' says Barker, who serves as the CBT's secretary."
And the following is from the TNIV website: "Q: Would this translation refer to God by using such terminology as “she” or “our Father-Mother”? A: Absolutely not. It is the commitment and firm belief of the CBT that masculine terminology remains masculine when the original texts use the masculine form." Here I think they are referring to terminology in reference to God. I'll do a little more digging on that issue. Though I would not be 100% sure that even the CBT members themselves know where every one of them stands on that issue.
I track with Scot's statement that the TNIV does not at all undermine your (and frankly my own since I think it best reflects the language of Scripture) belief in the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Of course the equality between them and the "perichoresis" are certainly there as well. Again the male-female relational passages are in no way watered down in the TNIV (I believe) nor should they be in any good translation- whether they reflect culture or are timeless is beside the point here for me- I am talking about faithful translation of the meaning (by the way, Eugene Peterson I read dislikes it when someone says, "Here the Word of God" and then reads his own "the Message". He believes such should be reserved for a standard translation such as the RSV -from one of his books I have, I believe, but for time's sake I mention this from my memory).
Yes, there is arguably (and I think so) a bit of the partriarchical aspect of Biblical culture lost in the TNIV in Psalm 1. But look at the TNIV translation of Proverbs which consistently retains "my son". And the TNIV translates "sonship" in Gal 4:5 and Eph 1:5.
God, by the way in his essential being is neither male nor female. I'm confident that you would agree here. "So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27). In spite of what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:7 (and context) to say that woman is less than made in the image of God would mean that she is no longer human. Nor would it track well with Paul's words in Gal 3:28.
I question whether statements about God in Scripture could ever be relegated on a scrap heap even when one holds to an egalitarian view. Certainly Jesus is forever male in his humanity- even his glorified humanity. (Just as many will be forever female.)
I love what Scot is saying in his last comment. Especially when at some level we need to consider both the hierarchical relationship as well as the perichoretic union within the Trinity.
Help me understand how language switching from generic "he" to the way we speak in such matters would be undermining ultimately the teaching of the Trinity. I would think generic "he" is probably a reflection of the partriarchical culture in its origins. Certainly, even in the case of Psalm 1, which may very well have special reference to the partriarch of the family, the female is not excluded from being blessed in the same way. Consider the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31. She is hardly a wallflower. And in light of the clear word that in Christ there is no longer male nor female, but we are all one- this seems to me to lend more strength to what ought to be apparent (in my opinion) anyhow, that "he" in Scripture is most often, in didactic passages (like 1 Pe 3:10-12) referring to all human beings.
Just some of my thoughts. I apologize to you Gerald, and to all for my lengthiness here.
Thanks Gerald for your thoughts. I will be reading your blog in coming days. You are very blessed as I can see from the photos on it. Blessings.
Gerald: Here is the bit of digging I did which I meant in reference to your original question to me about whether a majority in the CBT are complementarians: "I think that most on the TNIV team are also complementarians, believing, for instance, that women should not be ordained to be pastors or elders." And here is the page: http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2005/06/esv-and-tniv-gender-language-my-pov.html This was written by Wayne Leman on "the Better Bibles Blog". I find this blog very interesting in discussing the translation of Scripture.
Scot and Ted,
Thanks for the feedback. Scot--I didn’t intend to skirt the issue. I do think that egalitarianism--and thus the TNIV's movement toward it--does threaten Trinitarian thought. But I'm not sure I want to own your comment that the translators of the TNIV "ought to know better." This seems to suggest intentionality or incompetence--neither of which I would impute. Certainly you, as you stated, don't see a logical connection between gender inclusive language and the subverting of the economic Trinity. I'm connecting dots that you don't. Fair enough. I don't want my comments to lead any to the conclusion that I somehow think there is a malevolent spirit at play here.
And Ted, I will be trying to address the questions of your last major paragraph in my future posts. And thanks much for digging up the quotes. That has been helpful in correcting some of my assumptions. Thanks both for the dialog. Blessings.
Ted Gossard said:
Though it seems that the “better Bibles” website is more where I am, with reference to philosophy of translating the Bible, it is a great site in promoting discussion along those lines.
Ted, thank you for your kind words about the Better Bibles Blog (BBB). It is true that we allow expression of differences of opinion on the BBB. However, we do not permit mind-reading of the sort that Wayne Grudem seems to practice, where he (and those who speak and write like him) think it is permissible to state the motivations of any Bible translators, in particular those of the TNIV, even when those translators themselves has stated their motivations otherwise. Stating other people's motivations is often a communication stopper, harmful for dialogue necessary for mutual understanding of one another's positions. And, in essence, when we state another person's motivations when their own statement of their motivations differs from our statements of them, we are logically calling the other party a liar. At a minimum, it is the ethical and polite thing to always couch statements purporting to be about the motivations of others with "I personally think that their motivations are ... (even though they state otherwise)."
There is a theological issue with mind-reading also. I personally think that only God has the ability to read the minds and hearts of people. Even we ourselves sometimes do not know our own motivations as well as we should, but how can anyone else know our motivations at all when they do not have access to our own thoughts?
Wayne, I agree and I appreciate the dialogue you guys have carried on with those in disagreement.
Did some of my thoughts in your judgment cross that line -not that I expect all my stuff to be read :)?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.