In a post today John says:
If you want to pick an argument with me, tell me why NRSV, ESV, TNIV, NLT – pick your poison – is poorly conceived, dangerous, or otherwise too flawed to recommend to others.
At one level, John is quite right: any and all of these translations can have a place in the study. However, I do have two arguments to pick with him here:
- I believe it is fair to characterise the ESV, TNIV, and NLT (2e) as flawed, because they fail to provide a translation of those books whose canonicity is disputed among the churches, commonly called Apocrypha or deutero-Canonical. (NLT 1e does. The ESV is being published in an edition with an Apocrypha, but its not by the same translation team, nor endorsed by it AFAIK). This is, as I judge the matter, a serious flaw.
- Secondly, I would characterise the ESV as poorly conceived, since I think it was decided on for primarily negative purposes, to be “not the TNIV”, and to resist the encroachment of contemporary English’s preference for gender inclusive terms. In the many words written about it by its supporters as much as its detractors, those negative goals seem to me to predominate.
In the particular case John mentions, namely Psalm 1, I agree that the gendered language is a particular problem for the translator, not only because of the singular-plural contrast in terms of poetic meaning, but also because of later christological usage. If, as I do, you believe “they” now functions as a non-gender-specific singular, then “Blessed is the one who does not walk in the way of misogyny: whatever they do shall heal the hurts of gendered history.”
As Suzanne McCarthy points out, the ESV’s use of gendered language is far more ideologically exclusive than they seem to notice.
But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. (ESV website)
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man Christ Jesus (ESV 1 Tim 2:5)
Now it is perfectly possible to suggest that there is a non-Pauline author of 1 Timothy, who has retreated some distance from Paul’s theology, and indeed believes that men are saved by Christ, and women by having babies (1 Tim 2:15). The same author seems to believe that holiness in men leads to prayer, but in women to modest dress and minimal make-up. (1 Tim 2:8-15). Those who take that line then trump the author’s misogyny with Paul’s more radical Christ-centred egalitarian androgyny (Gal 3:28).
I assume that interpretative strategy is unavailable on theological grounds to the translators of the ESV, who are likely not only to subscribe to Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, but are committed to the principle that Scripture is its own interpreter, and therefore each passage must be interpreted by reference to others, and in the service of an harmonious whole.
The ESV’s enthusiasm for gendered language has led the translators to limit atonement to males. Dangerous, one of the epithets John notes, does not seem to strong a word in that particular context.
{ 31 comments }
Thanks so much, Doug, for picking up on this.
These are a few more of the verses which now eliminate the meaning of “people” which was there in the Greek and address only “men” that is males.
And Jesus said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”
“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God”
In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
“Men of Israel, hear these words:
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,and he gave gifts to men.”
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
***********
If women are excluded from each of these verses, the Bible is significantly altered for them.
Because of my close association with Dr. Packer, in the same church for 15 years, I am not blind to the fact that it has been his desire to remove women from being ordained in the Anglican church. He has worked for this for much of his life and has written about it.
There used to be women who were allowed to speak on occasion in that church but no longer. I have to say that the position of women has been in every way dimished during the last 15 years. There used to be a wonderful minister before the present one, who has worked with Packer to see that women would be restricted from leadership.
Thanks for the other examples Sue. I know your personal experience has been very unhappy in this area, but I would hesitate to ascribe the same motivation to everyone involved in the ESV, not least because it is quite inconsistent on this issue.
I think it really rests on whether the plural of anthropos, includes women or not. The translators have decided that sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on the significance of each verse.
Of course, the ESV website also says this:
Similarly, where God and man are compared or contrasted in the original, the ESV retains the generic use of “man” as the clearest way to express the contrast within the framework of essentially literal translation.
So the ESV translators have not, in fact, intentionally limited the atonement to males here, but rather have used the generic “man,” which according to them is unmarked for gender. I think it would be hard for anyone who has followed the ESV/TNIV saga to miss that point.
Needless to say, readers have a right to feel confused here. Why would one and the same translation use “person” inclusively in one place, and “man” inclusively in others? This can certainly lead readers unacquainted with the peculiarities of gender language in the ESV to conclude that the atomement is limited to males. But is disingenuous to suggest that the the ESV translators did this, that they intended it to be so.
Ah, but Esteban, I would understand that. Here however, they do say specifically “between God and men” (plural) which is, I think, in a different class from generic “man” whatever the rights and wrongs of the latter.
And I would most certainly agree with you that the ESV is misleading here for the very reason you cite — yet the translators (or, more accurately, revisers) did not intend this. I’m sure they would insist that the plural “men” is also unmarked for gender, and use it in that way in a passage such as this, in which “God and man are compared or contrasted.”
Not only that, Esteban, but the ESV Preface itself points in the direction you propose:
the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52).
That would have been better worded if plural “men” unmarked for gender was also noted. Still, that is clearly the use in 1 Tim 2:5, the passage cited above, as the ESVSB note is perfectly clear about. The theological editor of the ESVSB, of course, is J. I. Packer.
Doug,
Thanks for picking up on this.
However, I would contest your points, except insofar as they simply reflect your preferences as a fairly PC Anglican. You are welcome to your Anglican political correctness. But then, non-politically correct Anglicans with priorities a bit different than yours, theologically and church-politically, are welcome to theirs. How these things relate to the grand scheme of things, the larger work of God in the world, about that I would certainly hesitate to make apodictic assertions. Since you are mightily concerned about people’s intentions and seem quite content to make your opponents into stick figures without complex motivations for their preferences, I will simply cite Prov 21:1 and similar texts which generalize the principle in order to point out that reference to the intentions of particular individuals decides exactly nothing, in terms of historical results both within and without the bounds of the Church.
Here are some things to consider.
(1) A large part of the usership of ESV does not consider the deutero-canonicals to be suitable for establishing doctrine or foundational to practice. Hence its absence in most editions of the ESV. However the ESV with the Apocrypha has been published by Oxford University Press. I noticed it was selling well at the annual meeting of Wisconsin United Methodists last week. Fancy that.
Anglican congregations that are adopting the ESV for internal use and wanted to have an ESV including the deuteros have now been granted their wish. So have evangelicals who know the importance of the deuteros and want them in a Bible they use, even if the deuteros are extra-constitutional, considered unsuitable as proof texts for faith and practice.
(2) Those who conceived of ESV and those who now use it, an ever growing swath of the Christian family (conservative Lutherans are about to put out a study Bible of their own with ESV as base), are a diverse lot. Many people prefer it simply because it is so close to RSV, the last great ecumenical translation, which they grew up with. If you don’t like some of the promoters of ESV, if you find yourself in the opposite camp more or less across the board with respect to ESV promoters in your own denomination, that’s absolutely fine with me. But your distaste and outright rejection of ESV must be seen in that context.
It was no different when RSV came out. It was rejected by conservatives and split denominations for analogous reasons. “So-and-so on the translation team preaches another gospel.” “The RSV is a Trojan horse for a broader agenda.” True enough. But many conservatives, especially in mainline denominations (but note also Harold Lindsell) chose to embrace RSV anyway (with qualifications perhaps). I think they were the wiser heads.
(3) If you truly believe that gender inclusive use of masculine pronouns is a form of misogyny, you had better not recommend not only ESV, but KJV, NIV, NASB95, NAB, and NJB as well, Bibles in very wide use. On that principle, it turns out that the ongoing translation work of Robert Alter is, objectively speaking, misogynist as well.
If this is a deal-breaking scruple you have, then you need to condemn all of the above Bible translations, and the churches, traditions, and individuals they represent.
Rather, as far I can see, you are simply aligning yourself on one side of the culture wars, siding with the language police on one side of one front in that war, and picking on soldiers on the opposite side of the culture war which impact you most closely.
What is the culture war of which I speak? As I’ve written elsewhere, the reason why three traditions of Christianity in particular – Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and evangelicalism (a transversal movement) – have qualms to the point of rejection of “gender-sensitive” translation is that it is seen to be a Trojan horse for changes of wider import, including the ordination of women and adoption of a liberal feminist theology which threatens the very foundations of classical Christian teaching.
In the case of TNIV, the perception is not completely unfounded. The great John Stek and others in the Christian Reformed Church to whom we owe TNIV did so precisely in a context, their own Americanized Dutch Reformed church, that was on its way to ordaining women and concomitant theological revision. The correlation is far from accidental.
As you probably know, Doug, though I am a supporter of the ordination of women and an egalitarian, I am dead-set against those in the feminist-egalitarian camp who have divided and continued to make their scruples a matter of status confessionis. I consider the pasdarans in the egalitarian camp to take a fundamentally disrespectful approach, and to have adopted a counter-productive strategy. In fact, they have hit on a means of further polarization (not unlike what is happening with respect to GLBT matters) which reaps its own victims.
(4) The idea that ESV limits atonement to men is a deliberate misreading of the translation and you know it. This is one more reason why I will continue to defend ESV. Its fiercest opponents do not hesitate to misrepresent it when it suits their purposes.
In a former United Methodist congregation of mine, the Worship Committee evaluated three Bible translations for possible adoption as a pew Bible: NRSV, ESV, and NIV. One look at passages like Gen 1:1 and Psalm 23 settled it in favor of ESV over against NRSV. One look at a passage like Matthew 5 or 1 Corinthians 13 settled it in favor of ESV over against (T)NIV.
The congregation took to ESV without any hitches. It includes high school teachers and an English professor, all of whom are women. They never have and never will have any difficulty in understanding the language of RSV-ESV Matthew 5:9 or RSV-ESV-NAB-NJB James 1:19 in a gender-inclusive fashion. The suggestion that they would read any passage in ESV as limiting atonement to men is simply ridiculous.
In my opinion, at least on this side of the pond, offense taken at translation of this kind is a trained response. It’s what people learn to object to in a few seminaries and a very limited set of PC environments.
I will be blogging on these matters further. I hope we can keep the conversation lively and interesting. Please continue to pick the argument. I’m sure others will be listening in.
John, I think you are attributing to me many views you disagree with, but which I neither hold nor expressed in this post.
Note, for example, that on the question of the Apocrypha, I criticise a number of translations and not simply the ESV.
Note further that I am talking about a preference for forms of gendered language in translations of scripture which are out of touch with the majority use of the language. At that level alone, the ESV is problematic.
I honestly think that if you gave the ESV of 1 Timothy to someone entirely unfamiliar with this dispute, or with the Bible at all, they would deduce that the letter taught a differential means of both salvation and the calling of the Christian, according to gender.
I do not see any way in which raising those points becomes either politically correct, or impugns the motives of the translators.
Finally, I don’t even believe in the culture wars, far less take part in them. I regard the language (of war) as a rhetorical construction placed on serious matters by those who have no wish to listen to people who think differently.
Let’s try again.
(1) On the question of the “Apocrypha,” how does your claim that translations of the Bible which leave them out are flawed differ in any way from a claim from the point of view of an Ethiopian Orthodox, all the currently available Bibles in English because they leave out parts of the canon such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees?
Keep in mind that I have argued in favor of having editions of the Bible in English that include all the books and prefaces that are found in the great pandects of the various traditions. It’s just that I don’t think it’s possible to call the reduced Bibles of the West and most of the East flawed in any way, except from a confessional standpoint.
(2) If you did not mean to misrepresent or impugn the motives of the ESV translation team, I think you nevertheless succeeded in doing so. But if you don’t see this, it’s probably useless to dwell on it further.
For the rest, I disagree with you that a competent reader would come to the conclusions you suggest on reading ESV 1 Timothy. In fact, I have seen over and over again how competent readers of the Bible can plough through 1 Timothy 2, a problematic complex for just about anyone regardless of the translation used, and contextualize it through a canonical hermeneutic such that its apparent plain sense is neutralized. There is no need for speculative historical-critical foundations to reach such conclusions.
As for the culture wars, it’s touching that you neither believe in them nor take part in them. I don’t think that changes the fact that they exist, and that you are willy-nilly a participant in them.
You say: “If you did not mean to misrepresent or impugn the motives of the ESV translation team, I think you nevertheless succeeded in doing so. But if you don’t see this, it’s probably useless to dwell on it further.”
I think you need to be specific here about how you think I’ve done this, rather than dismissive of my stupidity in not seeing your point.
You also say:”Since you are mightily concerned about people’s intentions and seem quite content to make your opponents into stick figures without complex motivations for their preferences”
I see nowhere where I do this. My views of others intentions is based on their expressed statements: the ESV site is explicit that gendered language was an important issue for them. If you refer to my suggestion that the ESV translators would wish to interpret Scripture by Scripture and resist pseudonymous authorship of the pastorals … well I would like to know in what way that is a “stick figure” instead of an accurate description.
This is how I read your post, as claiming that ESV 1 Timothy 2:5 limits Christ’s atonement to men since it reads:
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men (ἀνθρώπων), the man Christ Jesus.
But that is just absurd. Men in “God and men” is naturally understood with men as gender-inclusive, as in “mice and men.” I take it, then, that you also protest loudly at all the Christmas ceremonies in which we hear, “on earth peace, good will to men.” Really, who can take any of this seriously?
Furthermore, your reading of ESV 1 Timothy flies in the face of the known views of the ESV team and just about everyone who makes consistent use of ESV, KJV, or RSV, insofar as they overlap with ESV in this sense. Esteban has already called you on this one, so I won’t belabor the point.
The appeal to majority use of the English language is particularly precious. Outside of CEV, David Ker’s favorite translation, translations of the Bible that do not contain all kinds of examples of language that is far from majority use standards simply do not exist. Churchgoing Bible readers are used to adjusting to archaisms and quaint aspects of the Bible they read.
Even those coming to the faith from a non-Christian background quickly catch on. Indeed, they often end up cherishing these archaisms. Surely you know this.
On the other hand, by all means, if you think it wise to join your fellow Anglican Suzanne McCarthy’s bandwagon, be my guest. If you ask me, the amount of harm the polarization pasdaran extremists on both side of the continuum foment within the Anglican communion keeps on growing.
I fight pasdarans on both sides of the continuum within my own denomination. As I’ve often said to district superintendents and bishops: keep up the good work of alienating normal people by harping on PC themes. Why not just make the denomination a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party and be done with it? All that does is convince people, including most people who vote Democrat, that your agenda is unrelated to their concerns, which, religiously speaking, lie elsewhere.
My guess is that the vast majority of Brits have already voted with their feet on these matters. This side of the pond, however, they tend to switch rather than stay at home. They often end up switching to churches that consistently use one or more of the translations on your “flawed” non-PC list. Fancy that. The law of unintended consequences.
The polarization is the direct result of pasdaran operations from extremists on both sides. The fact that you do not see this is, and deny that a war is even going on, is simply baffling. If the level of denial has reached these levels, I don’t know what to say.
This side of the pond, moderate evangelical and moderate catholic Episcopalians are coalescing. I really don’t see any other positive base from which Anglicanism might go forward in this century. But with this post, you strike a blow, whether you are aware of it or not, for the polarizers.
Okay, I think I now understand your train of thought. I have to tell you, though, that I have no idea what “pasdaran” means, so at that point your argument eludes me.
I think that (whether the bias is subconscious or conscious) the ESV translators have provided a translation that makes it easier to affirm doctrines of male authority being God-given.
I don’t have a problem with “between God and man”, I do think, especially in the light of the end of the chapter, and the controversial and hard to interpret “women will be saved by / through childbirth” (note that the REB really does think that this is about salvation) that saying “between God and men” is genuinely (to say the very least) more ambiguous than it ought to be.
That is to say, the Greek “ἀνθρώπων” like the earlier English use of “men” is normally understood as an inclusive term, hence it is in no way conditioned by the chapter’s ending to become a gender specific term. Instead, by being universal and inclusive, it questions any interpretation of the closing verses that renders childbirth a gender-specific means of salvation. However, because in contemporary English, “men” is normally a gender specific term, then it becomes possible for the idea of “salvation by childbirth” to gain hold and retroactively interpret “men” in verse 5 as gender specific also.
That seems to me a carefully reasoned argument about a specific translation problem and I fail to see how I’ve joined the polarisers by articulating it.
It may be that I didn’t explain my thought processes well, in which case I’m sorry. It may be that you are importing the whole of your previous unfruitful debates with Suzanne, and attributing all that angered you in them to me, in which case I hope you are sorry.
The KJV and subsequent translations do not come with a preface designating that “men” has a male meaning component and refers to males.
I am aware that many users of the ESV do not espouse many of the restrictions on women that the ESV translators support. However, it is verifiable the two editors of this translation are opposed to the eldership of women, any authority really, and that certain verses were scrutinized by them to ensure doctrinal support for their views.
Specifically, Grudem cites his concerns re 1 TIm. 2:12 on Adrian Warnock’s blog, (links later), and I interviewed Jim Packer regarding 2 Tim. 2:2. I don’t think there is any other way to construe what happened, that is, the assault on the TNIV organized by Grudem and signed by Packer. And then, I was in Packer’s church, and saw the gradual but firm removal of women from leadership.
I think it is important for me to realize, and I do fully accept this, that many users of the ESV will not use it against women. However, the fact remains that it was developed for this purpose. Many women who do not read Greek are easily convinced that the original scriptures do refer to men only, and they have an historical approach that is not available to women in fundamentalist churches. These women do sometimes suffer severe depression due to the fact that they are taught that God has s differential love for men and women.
In my opinion, at least on this side of the pond, offense taken at translation of this kind is a trained response. It’s what people learn to object to in a few seminaries and a very limited set of PC environments.
My response is not due to either seminary teaching or to a PC environment. I had never attended a liberal church, seminary or any other such institution, or even read the vast array of feminist theology when I opened the ESV and was overcome with disbelief.
When you and I were in the IVCF group together in Toronto, we had a motto from the NASB using 2 Tim. 2:2. As young women we recited it and firmly believed that it referred to women as well as men. Imagine my surprise at reading the ESV preface and the text of 2 Tim. 2:2 and then 1 Tim. 2:5. I went to Cr., Packer in shock really. I took a day off work and interviewed him. On finding that he thought 2 Tim. 2:2 meant “men” males, I knew then that it was intentional on his part.
It was, I suppose the very last bit of human dignity stripped off me by fundamentalism, knowing that my church would use such a Bible. I soon after told my pastor that I would be leaving the church. He was clear that he supported male headship and could not see any other way for a woman to be a Christian.
I noted jumped right into the dating argument. Besides the late theology, the focus on canonicity, the authoritarian aspects the most damning piece of evidence rarely gets mentioned it arguably refers to the Antitheses by name, 6:20, “O, Timothy, guard the precious deposit recoiling from profane and empty jabbering and the Antitheses (oppositions in English) of the falsely labeled ‘gnosis’ for some who profess it have shot wide of the faith ”
And certainly there is a movement, Patriarchy, which argues that women are saved by submission to a godly husband …. which sure sounds like family rather than individual salvation to me. What else is meant by Gothard style “covering”. So I’d say the ESV is being deliberately ambiguous here.
On the gender issue of course I agree with Suzanne that core purpose of the creation of the ESV was women’s oppression. Whatever plusses and minus the translation has (and far more minus than plusses) the purpose of this book was to further an evil cause. It is entirely possible to read the bible as a book about a male god talking to his male followers with infrequent comments about the status of their money, animals and women. It is entirely possible to read the bible as a book about a righteous and ethical God talking to all of humanity about righteousness and goodness and urging them forward in their quest for justice, peace, love….. The ESV was designed to further the earlier reading.
First, in studying the ESV, one notes the sparsity of language specialists in the guiding team — this was a translation not made with accuracy as the highest criterion but with obedience to the far-right Presbyterian belief system.
Second, note that the changes to the RSV in the Old Testament are relatively small. A few are made to remove archaisms; of the others, they are almost all to increase the Christological impact of the text or to make the OT into a conservative Christian document. John is fond of saying that the RSV follows the Masoretic Text more closely, but this is not the case: where the RSV cites the the DSS or Septuagint, the ESV does as well.
Except perhaps in the reduction of archaism (which I see as a negative) it is hard to see any significant improvement the ESV has made over the RSV. Certainly, the ESV translators made a point of excluding Catholics and Jews — although they were either consulted or included in the RSV translation team; and so the latter should view the translation with some care.
As to the so-called ESV Apocrypha — it is almost entirely a straight copy of the RSV; the actual changes made are minimal. Furthermore the ESV Apocrypha is unsupported by any publisher other than Oxford (which has published it in a single poorly-bound edition); thus it is not possible to buy a Crossway edition with this material. In contrast, it is quite easy to find NRSV (and many other translations) with this material. Furthermore, I don’t know of any electronic versions of the ESV that include this additional material. It is clearly not a version that is mean for real use, but a museum showpiece.
I notice very little impact of the ESV on scholarly articles (outside of a few rabidly conservative house organs that publish work that is more polemical than scholarly).
Now, I would like to say something positive about the ESV as well. The ESV has had a terrific marketing plan — putting out a variety of very interesting editions and matching electronic versions. With the notable exception of the propaganda-istic (and mostly erroneous) ESV Study Bible, most Crossway publications are among the best of their price class in terms of physical quality. Tying in the ESV into a hate campaign against the TNIV is a similarly inspired marketing decision.
Theo,
In an upcoming post on my blog, I will exemplify why ESV is well-suited as a Bible for religious purposes – for the faith community it was intended for, of course. The NRSV, on the other hand, is well-suited, not for religious purposes of either Jews or Christians, but for secular purposes, an academic context.
Really, all your remarks boil down to one thing: your visceral hatred of all things evangelical.
The poison in your remarks succeeds in making those of us who are evangelical turn to Matthew 5:11 with the prayer that we will be found worthy of your continued attacks.
John, I deny your absurd charges. My remarks speak for themselves. Since you no longer read books before you publish reviews of them, I expect it is too much to expect that you will bother to read my comments.
Theo,
You say:
“John is fond of saying that the RSV follows the Masoretic Text more closely, but this is not the case: where the RSV cites the the DSS or Septuagint, the ESV does as well.”
It will be easy to prove you wrong there. It is one of the strengths of ESV that it corrects back toward the MT on many occasions. I’m too busy with other things at the moment, but I will gladly make the case in exquisite detail in the future.
The anti-TNIV campaign was far more than a marketing plan. It was the expression of a culture war (excuse the metaphor) going on among evangelicals which completely transcends the question of Bible translation (they are just convenient hooks) and invests a great variety of social, political, and theological issues. It has to be understood in that light or it will never be understood at all.
“In fact, I have seen over and over again how competent readers of the Bible can plough through 1 Timothy 2, a problematic complex for just about anyone regardless of the translation used, and contextualize it through a canonical hermeneutic such that its apparent plain sense is neutralized. There is no need for speculative historical-critical foundations to reach such conclusions.”
First, one needs to read the preface of the ESV or have it explained to you. Then, if the preacher wishes to point out that women are excluded from anything at all, there is typically a verse to support that.
I have also heard a well educated young pastor from London, UK, who preached recently on 1 Timothy 5:8. He carefully contextualized so taht the listeners were made aware that although the pronouns were all masculine in the Greek, a woman could also provide for her family. I wonder where he got the impression that there are masculine pronouns in the Greek of that passage. There is not one in sight.
He has sat under the influence of the ESV translators, and assumes somehow that the translation that he was using represented gender accurately. Odd though that Erasmus thought this psssage was written for women, and Calvin said maybe it was but it was intended for everyone.
I am not sure where to reply to the above comments by Doug and John. However, let me say that it is clear that “men” means males, because I asked Dr. Packer personally about this, and I read the preface. Perhaps the translators did not intend to exclude women from salvation, but only from most church activity. But the effect must be considered.
Suzanne,
Your use of selective quotation is terribly misleading. The ESV preface also states:
the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52).
The facts are precisely the opposite of those you assert. There is no way one can read the ESV Preface and 1 Timothy 2:5 thereafter and still have doubts about its sense: atonement is not limited to males, but is offered to all human beings regardless of gender.
John,
It is clear that the singular “man” is being used to mean mankind. This does not mean that the plural refers to women. I interviewed Packer. He said, “We think it means men.” But when he said “we think” he sounded pretty sure.
Of course, they don’t mean to limit atonement. They do mean to give permission to any pastor to disallow women the practice of any gift in church. That’s why Eph. 4:8 says men.
Let me be clear. I asked Dr. Packer about 2 Tim. 2:2 and he said that it referred to women. I was preoccupied at the time with other questions and the implications of the preface had not yet hit me.
Okeydokey, boys and girls, I think we’re beginning to repeat ourselves with added heat but no more light. (That’s called a big hint!)
But has this blog been busy while I’ve been asleep!
New points and clarifications remain welcome.
I’m going to come at one of these questions from a different angle in a post later today.
It should be pointed out that to those of us of an older generation, say 55 plus, the use of ‘men’ has pretty much meant men and women except when someone didn’t want it to.
But today’s generations understand ‘men’ to be male and ‘persons’, ‘people’, humanity, etc. to be referring to men and women. That isn’t likely to change back. And we need our Bibles to be accurately representing when it is men and women and male only or females only.
Tiro3,
How nice of you to join the conversation!
What you say is largely true, but today’s generations make an exception when reading the Bible, as they do for other old books. That is, the quaint use of the word “men” in traditional translations of the Bible (ESV included) doesn’t raise an eyebrow among young people. Not once in my experience, really.
There are many other quaint old things in the Bible, after all: this is just one more.
Objections to the inclusive use of “men” in Bible translation, and especially the avoidance of an inclusive use of the third masculine singular pronoun, is a trained response by and large derived from an activist branch of the feminist movement. In the marketplace of ideas, it is often so labeled, correctly enough IMHO.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }