I would like to know what you think. Read through the debate. Feel free to add comments that might help our understanding of the issues, especially if you have some aptitude in the original languages or you have done some translation work.

Then, based on what you have read, answer the poll.

Here then, is the interchange of ideas that has occurred so far:

Adam wrote:

Ummm…ever come across people in a conversation and find yourself in way, way, way over your head? Kinda like walking on on a conversation between Stephen Hawking and John Polkinghorne….and the only thing you can contribute is something you heard on NOVA. ‘Bout how I feel after reading the comments…..”dynamic equivalance”…huh?….I couldn’t seem to find it in my concordance . I stumbled across this blog from Steve Brown’s site.

I was never quite aware of the polarity involved in my choice of Bible (e.g. conservative, liberal, independent?). Sure, I’d heard stories of folks who touted the KJV only, but I never really met any of them. To be honest, I wouldn’t know any of the names of any of the translators. I usually just read the first one I happen to grab…sometimes NIV…other times NLT……when I’m curious about what a particular word might have been, I click over to Strong’s KJV.

Keep in mind, my simple-minded approach comes from someone who has never been to seminary, never preached a sermon, and never taught a Sunday school class. So maybe I’m just not as sensitive to these “battles’ that rage within Christendom. Perhaps this ‘controversy’ is really more notieceable to those that do the studying(in seminary), teaching, and preaching. I see similar ‘battles’ in about any field of study…to those within the particular field they folks seem to enjoy the debating and arguing with their colleagues. To those outside the more academic nature of any given field-of-study the ‘battles’ and debates remain largely unseen.

But what do I know, I’ll just keep reading anyway.

Eclectic Christian responded:

Great post, and great comments too!

To Adam who was wondering about “dynamic equivalence”, here is an example that I always liked.

Let’s say that you are translating the Bible for a fairly primitive tribe, like my Grandfather did some 50 years ago. You come to the verse “Behold I stand at the door and knock.” Wait a minute, you have a problem, the culture to which you are communicating has no doors. What do you do? Try and explain the concept of door in your translation or use the dynamic equivalent, “Look, I am standing outside your hut and calling loudly!” This is the sort of the issue faced by the translator.

But then you have a further problem. A subset of the group that you are translating for does not use the word for “hut” that the majority does. They use a different word, lets call it “home”, which the majority also understand but in a slightly different way that is intended in the original Greek. So do you go with “hut”, a word not understood by some of your readers, or “home” a word understood by all, but some will have a slightly different understanding of it.

These are not easy choices for the translators to make. My Grandfather, using a manual typewriter, ended up having to type out the entire Bible seven times before he had a version of the Bible that understandable by all of his intended audience, and was able to be published!

A couple of unrelated comments on the NRSV. It has been unfairly called a liberal translation because of its use of gender inclusive language. I would like to note that the gender inclusive language is only used of humans, and never of God. Also the gender inclusive language is only used when the audience is clearly both men and women. If that makes a translation liberal then I guess I am a liberal. Boy is my wife going to be surprised!

I should also note that the NRSV is popular among Greek and Hebrew professors as it tends to be low on the dynamic equivalence scale and as such is closer to the original languages. (This at least has been my experience.)

Finally I will leave you with this thought. If Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation, would a gender inclusive science of Biblical interpretation be called Hiswomeneutics???

David A. Booth joined the debate. He wrote:

Michael Bell,

It isn’t true that the NRSV uses gender inclusive language only when the audience is clearly both men and women.

For example, in 1 Timothy 3:2 the NRSV reads “married only once” where the Greek says “husband of one wife”. Whether or not someone thinks that this is what 1 Timothy 3:2 “means” – it is by no means self-evident that Paul could not be referring to male only Bishops.

David

Eclectic Christian responded:

David A Booth,

I stand some what corrected. (I knew I might get myself into trouble my making such a blanket statement ) I think however that we are looking at a different dynamic in this particular verse.

You say that in 1 Timothy 3:2 “The Greek says ‘husband of one wife’”. Allow me to quibble a bit. That is what your translation of the Greek says, and that is what we are discussing here. The Greek is (and excuse my transliteration) “mias gynaikos andra”, or most literally, “of one (as opposed to many) women a man”. I think in this case the literal translation is very good, “a one woman man” That is, a guy who is above reproach (the purpose of the whole passage) and one that won’t fool around on his wife.

So the primary task then of the translator is to say how best to communicate this message. Is the intent of the author to restrict leadership to only men with one wife, or is the intent of the author to call for a marriage that is above reproach. Seeing as the whole passage is about being above reproach, translating it as “husband of one wife” actually clouds the meaning of the passage and might lead people to believe that Paul is making an injunction here against female leaders. However, since Paul’s intent of the passage is for a leader to be above reproach, starting with the marriage relationship, then “married only once” communicates that quite well without assigning to Paul a position on a topic that he was not even discussing in this passage.

Mike Bell

Once again over to David A. Booth

Mike Bell,

I agree with you that “one woman man” (or more dynamically “a one woman sort of man”) is a better translation.

As you write: “The Greek is (and excuse my transliteration) “mias gynaikos andra”, or most literally, “of one (as opposed to many) women a man”. I think in this case the literal translation is very good, “a one woman man” That is, a guy who is above reproach (the purpose of the whole passage) and one that won’t fool around on his wife.”

I disagree that “married only once” communicates the Greek well for two reasons:

First, to a contemporary English reader – “married only once” could easily sound like it is intending to rule out a Widowed Elder getting remarried. Contemporary English speakers don’t understanding getting married more than once to refer to polygamy (a very real possibility in the text) they most likely would take the idea of getting married a second time as implying that the man had been widowed or divorced.

Second, and to my point, the NRSV takes the gender out of the text. The Bishop in the Greek is male (andras). The NRSV doesn’t like this, so it makes the text gender neutral. While it is certainly possible that Paul is using male terms to refer to both male and female – this is by no means certain/obvious. But that was your claim (”Also the gender inclusive language is only used when the audience is clearly both men and women”).

David

I made two more comments:

David A Booth,

I think our little exercise here is probably like what translation committees go through. Little bit of give, little bit of take.

I totally agree with your first point about Widowed Elders. I think both of us would be happier with the translation “one woman sort of man”.

I think we are not that far apart on the second point. I would have modified my original statement to say “Gender inclusive language is only used when the audience is clearly both men and women, or when using gender specific language would mask the meaning of the text“.

In the case that we are talking here you agree that it is “possible that Paul is using male terms to refer to both male and female”. Yet, by phrasing the text the way you want to phrase it in English, many people would certainly come to a different conclusions and would exclude women from leadership based upon this verse.

Now based on my modified statement, maybe someone will come along and prove me wrong again. Its hard having to keep cleaning the egg off my face.

Hey, David A. Booth,

Just had a quick thought. How do you like “faithful to his marriage” as a translation?

It covers both the concept of being a one woman sort of of guy, and reduces the likelihood that people would interpret the verse as an prohibition against women leaders.

And gave David A. Booth the last word:

Michael,

“Faithful to his marriage” is an excellent dynamic translation. The only drawback (there are always trade offs!) is that it masks the possibility that Paul may be addressing polygamy. For that reason I would prefer the more colloquial: “one woman man” or “one woman sort of man”.

Yet, unlike you, I don’t think that a translation intended to be a standard pulpit/pew Bible should eliminate the possibility that the verse is restricting the office of Bishop to men.

Thanks for taking the time to interact! Now, I think we need to give thread back to M.S.

David

So now that you have read the debate and understand the issues, please make your choice in the poll above. Also, feel free to leave a comment if you feel you have more to add to the discussion.

As an eclectic Christian I am always on the lookout for posts that take an objective look at subjects of interests to Christians, and generally favour those which speak in positive terms. If you aware of other posts like this, please let me know, by adding a comment.