- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostThe Shepherd's Conference
- Next Post »Conference Kickoff
Why Is My Choice of a Bible Translation So Important?
- 02/28/06
- 35
I do believe that this will be the last book I read, at least for the next little while, on the subject of Bible translations. This is not to say that it is a bad book, nor is it to say that it is the final word on the subject. Rather, I have read several books about translating Scripture in the past weeks and am tiring of the topic.
Why Is My Choice of a Bible Translation So Important is written by Wayne Grudem and Jerry Thacker and is published by the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. The title of the book may be a little bit misleading, as the book primarily addresses the shortcomings of the TNIV translation. The actual text of the book is only 15 pages and draws quite heavily upon the excellent work of Dr. Leland Ryken on this subject. After introducing the different philosophies of translation, the authors provide several reasons for ensuring that you are reading a translation that renders, as much as is humanly possible, the words of God. The points are: every word of God is important; God's words have more depth of meaning than anyone knows; all Christians need to make sound decisions about the Bibles they buy and use; Gender-neutral Bibles change thousands of singular verses to plural and thus diminish the Bible's emphasis on individual responsibility and relationship with God; the real controversy is whether to water down or omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive.
The six-page Appendix 1 provides several examples of verses that have been changed in the TNIV. Some of these are very serious, while others are less so. For example, they show how the TNIV changes Psalm 34:20 from "He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken" to "He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken." This obscures the prophetic importance of this verse which clearly looks forward to the death of Jesus.
Appendix 2, weighing in at over 60 pages, lists 3,686 translation inaccuracies in the TNIV. As I read through this list I found some that changed the meaning of a passage only a small amount, but others were marked with "Absurd!" showing that the meaning had been changed a great deal. For example, Deuteronomy 21:15 is translated in the NIV as "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other..." while in the TNIV it is rendered as "If someone has two wives, and he loves one but not the other..." This is a verse where "man" is clearly the correct translation.
A final appendix contains two statements of concern about the TNIV that were signed by a large number of Evangelical leaders.
While I would not recommend Why Is My Choice of a Bible Translation So Important? as the first book a person should read on this topic, it is a sound, short treatment of some of the most serious problems with Today's New International Version.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (35)
Does the book explain why the TNIV is being singled out for being "troubling"? Psalm 34:20 is rendered "their bones" in the TEV, CEV, NCV, and NLT as well. Why doesn't CBMW go after those?
Moreover, what do you make of their explanation: (click here)? Was this even taken into account in the book? If not, why?
And so the TNIV witchhunt continues.
It's misleading for Grudem's differences with the TNIV to be labeled as "inaccuracies" when they're differences of opinion. The difference is a difference of strategy in translating into English, not a disagreement on what the Greek or Hebrew means.
You know, ignoring changing the actual meaning of the text for a second, it's still "inaccurate" grammatically. If a word in the Hebrew or Greek is singular, it should never be translated "they" or "their" as those are plural pronouns. People really need to relearn basic grammar, especially the TNIV authors :)
Hey Tim, I ordered this booklet in hopes that it might be useful to use and give away, as so many people are using paraphrases of the Bible and not even knowing the difference. But like you, I discovered the title was a bit misleading and while it does cover that issue, it does devote most of its content to the tniv. Wouldn't it be great to have an inexpensive tract or booklet that covers just what the title of the Grudem book says? Why don't you write us one? It's needed!
Matthew #1-
The TNIV translators do not need to "relean basic grammar." The singular "they" is a well documented phenomenon in English that goes back before KJV. It is meant to be gender-neutral singular pronoun...
"If someone makes too much noise, ask them to leave." I understand that Dr. Grudem has been informed of this previously, and he still says the TNIV changes "singular to plural." That's just not true. If, as a matter of translation philosophy, you think the "singular they" is bad because you can't tell whether it's singular or plural, then that's valid and reasonable. The TNIV translators are more worried that "man" will convey masculine-only meaning, not the gender-neutral singular meaning they see in the original greek (e.g. autos) or Hebrew.
More general comments about this subject: I tend to be very reformed/conservative in theology, but I think there is too much attention in Bloggia and elsewhere about the TNIV. I'm not faulting you, Tim (1) because you're my blogging hero and (2) you aren't responsible for the undue attention; it would be there without you.
Who should care about this subject? (a) people who are about to buy a Bible; (b) people who are translating the Bible or training to translate the Bible; (c) people who are choosing a Bible to preach from or pass out in the pulpits. Other than that, I think we're just looking at personal preferences and theological presuppositions.
The purported distinction between "paraphrase" and "translation" does not hold up in actual practice. I agree with Rusty S.'s comment above.
But, in some cases, there are disagreements about what the original Hebrew or Greek means. Many of these gender-pronoun cases work that way -- does the phrase refer to men only, or does it include women?
Here's a good example of both kinds of disagreement: II Timothy 2:2 - "And entrust what you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses to faithful *PEOPLE* who will be competent to teach others as well." (NET Bible)
The greek word translated as "people" in the NET is the plural of "anthropos." (That's where we get our word "anthropology"). Some people believe, because this verse refers to teaching, that the word must mean males-only. Other people, because of the generic "anthropos" (rather than the male 'aner'), and because Timothy himself was taught by faithful females, think he is commanded to entrust the gospel to both MALES and FEMALES. this is an exegetical disagreement.
But, let's assume you agree that it means both men and women should be entrusted. What's the best translation? I think "people" is good, because it conveys the gender-neutral idea. Other people think that English has a generic "man," that would include both men and women. But I think those people are wrong, or at least they don't speak the language like I do... Never, outside the Bible, would you expect "teach the men" to mean teach males and females. This second disagreement is an English usage disagreement.
In neither case, I think, can someone say a translator has "changed the meaning" of the verse. They just disagree about the meaning. And if Wayne Grudem, or Pope Benedict, or Tim Challies, or (especially) I tell you that a certain translator's rendering is "inaccurate," then that's fine --- but why should that person have the right to say which interpretations are allowed to be published or used in Bible translations?
Tim, your blog ate a comment of mine. Wha happen? :)
I think it is quite funny that some people seem to want to make this a conservative vs liberal issue or a reformed/non-reformed issue. The NIV and TNIV use generally Calvinistic language throughout. Also, the biggest name associated with the defense of the TNIV is, of course, D.A. Carson. He and Grudem share very similar theologies in general, yet they disagree on this issue.
For the record, I do think there are some trouble spots in the TNIV, but I also think the hype is overcooked.
I think that some of the posts here miss the point a little. Grudem, himself, has said that he does not have a problem translating antrhopoi (plural for man) as "people". I happen to think that English does frequently use the generic "men" and would be happy with that translation. Nevertheless, Grudem has said that he does not have a problem with this translation.
The problem, however, as Tim points out (and Grudem has repeatedly stated) is when (in the name of gender equality) the intended meaning is obscurred. When something is a prophecy of Jesus then there is no problem with "man" being used. When something is used as the Husband of a Wife (!) then there is no problem with man being used. The issue is not a matter of using "people" rather than "men" for the generic pronoun (many translations have done this - Updated version of NAS is an example in some places). The issue is when the masculine singular or plural pronoun is intended but it is rendered "people", "he or she", etc., by the TNIV scholars.
In Christ alone,mike
Ochuk,
We thought your comment was stupid, so we censored it.
No, really, the spam filter grabbed it because it contains a link. It should be published now.
I read a book by Josh Mcdowell called Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity and it had a pretty good section describing some pros and cons of different bible translations and paraphrases.
I know we have been talking mainly about the concerns on the TNIV, but does anyone have a recomended version and a good defense for it? I am interested. Thanks.
Mike,
Your comments show that you are thinking in terms of when an English translation now has 'people' or 'man' instead of whatever it was in the previous English translation. The TNIV is a retranslation of the Greek. The Greek should be the starting place, and it rarely is in these arguments.
The TNIV is a perfectly resonable translation from the Greek, not in the least out of the way, or Carson would never have taken his position on it.
I have no idea why the Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ahs reopened its attack, but it is entirely without premise coming with reference to the Greek.
Obviously if one thinks of a previous English translation as being authoritative that is a problem. But it is not the problem of the new translation, but of those who critique it.
As you may have read Packer recommends the New Living translation as well as the ESV. Possibly using those two in tandem might be a nice balance, as long as one is aware that no translation is 'transparent to the Greek' and no translation has authority over any other. They all reflect as much of the meaning of the original as they can. The TNIV is up there with the ESV.
The gender business simply does not translate directly from Greek into English no matter how you cut it. Every translation has to decide between a range of choices.
On anthropos the TNIV is closer to the German Luther Bible, hardly politically correct, but a different linguistic premise.
"The TNIV is a perfectly resonable translation from the Greek, not in the least out of the way, or Carson would never have taken his position on it."
What about the other scholars who have taken the opposite view? It seems such a stink would not be made over nothing. The link below shows many of todays Christian leaders concern with this translation.http://www.genderneutralbibles.com/statement_leaders.php
I regret that I may say something not entirely charitable if I respond to that question. What should I do?
Dr. Grudem persists in repeating that singular "they" changes singulars to plurals. It does not and he has been told that so many times. He is referring only to the syntactic plurality. For those who understand or use the singular they, which is approaching a majority of English speakers today, and in the past included the translators of the KJV, Shakespeare, C.S. Lewis, and many other great English writers, there is not confusion over singular or plural as Dr. Grudem claims. He needs to take a linguistics course or listen carefully to how people actually speak English and what they mean by what they speak. When the shoe is no the other foot, he doesn't complain at all. For instance, many have complained, not just since feminists gained more publicity, that generic "he" sounds masculine. Well, it is, grammatically, But for those who have used generic "he", it has not been masculine, but, rather gender-neutral. Generic "he" historically was grammatically masculine but semantically gender-inclusive. English simply does not have a true gender-inclusive pronoun without any conflicts between syntax and semantics. French does with "on" and German does. Many other languages do. English has gotten by with the centuries old singular they and the generic "he". There is no need to have theological fights over two English pronouns which have been used widely by millions of English speakers.
We need to focus on genuine translation issues, such as accuracy of how to translate anthropoi in Rom. 12:1 and many other issues.
Suzanne,
You are correct that the translation in question is a translation of the Greek and Hebrew (so are *almost* all of the major ones). You are, however, incorrect when you state that my starting place is with the English.
I clearly referenced Anthropoi as being either "men" or "people". Again, when Anthropoi is being used as a gender neutral word then I have no problem with it being translated "people" or "they". Grudem does not either.
However, I do have a problem (as Tim noted and so did Wayne Grudem) when the word anthropos is used for man (not person!) and yet the TNIV chooses to render it "he and she" or "they" or "the person" in order to remain gender neutral.
Since most of the examples given were from the old testament we should probably be talking Hebrew rather than Greek. Nevertheless, I am simply using the Greek word as a representative of the discussion at hand.
So again, allow me to state the point. The problem is NOT whether the TNIV is justified in using a gender neutral word for Anthropoi (or anthropos - singular) when the Greek is referring to a gender-neutral set of people or person. The proplem IS that this is not where the TNIV always stops. Occasionally (even often) they have taken a word that was Intended to be used to refer to men (or a man) and made it gender neutral.
Hopefully that clarifies.
In Christ alone,mike
In my previous comment I ended:
We need to focus on genuine translation issues, such as accuracy of how to translate anthropoi in Rom. 12:1 and many other issues.
I, of course, should have typed adelphoi instead of anthropoi.
Mike said:
So again, allow me to state the point. The problem is NOT whether the TNIV is justified in using a gender neutral word for Anthropoi (or anthropos - singular) when the Greek is referring to a gender-neutral set of people or person. The proplem IS that this is not where the TNIV always stops. Occasionally (even often) they have taken a word that was Intended to be used to refer to men (or a man) and made it gender neutral.
Mike, you need to look at the lexicons again (all of the, especially ones which are based on sound philological and linguistic study). The lexical meaning of anthropos is 'person.' In the appropriate context, it can refer to a man, but it does not mean 'man.' This is a very important semantic distinction, one between lexical meaning and referential meaning.
You have made your claim. Now, please cite a single instance from the TNIV where it inaccurately translates anthropos as 'person.' Remember, just because the word may refer to a man does not mean that the word means 'man.' It still means 'person.' That is its dictionary meaning.
Dr. Grudem has confused referential meaning with lexical meaning. When making claims against a Bible version, it is critically important that the facts be stated correctly. Many believe Dr. Grudem because he has become a nationwide speaker in Christian circles. But even a theologian as fine as Dr. Grudem makes mistakes and this is one of them. We all make mistakes. And we can all learn and correct our mistakes.
What about the other scholars who have taken the opposite view? It seems such a stink would not be made over nothing. The link below shows many of todays Christian leaders concern with this translation.
Most students of logic recognize that the argument from numbers is fallacious. It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it is untrue, it still remains untrue. The men who signed the Statement of Concern are sincere men of God. They desire to be a true to biblical teaching as possible. But any of us can err. They has been some error, not total error by any means but some error. It is important that the errors be corrected. The men who created the CSG (Colorado Springs Guidelines), Dr. Grudem, Dr. Poythress, Dr. Piper, et al, some of the same men who signed the SOC, recognized after awhile that they had erred some and they revised the CSG to be closer to the truth, as they understood it. You should be able to read their own accounts somewhere on the Internet of how they came to understand Greek better after further research and so then then revised their CSG.
Deuteronomy 21:15 is translated in the NIV as "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other..." while in the TNIV it is rendered as "If someone has two wives, and he loves one but not the other..." This is a verse where "man" is clearly the correct translation.
This is right from Tim's article.....can you explain why they would do this? Why "someone" instead of the obviously intended "man?' Just curious.....
Anthropos *always* means person, gender neutral. However, English does not have a word for person that stylistically can be used in all contexts. Person is a marked stylistic use in English, so man is sometimes used instead.
People are starting from the English if they assume that anthropos *ever* really means 'man' a male. It doesn't but English only acquired gender neutral words recently from Latin, 'person', and 'human'. Both these words represent the meaning of anthropos, possibly 'mortal' also. This is always the sense in Greek, of an ordinary person.
The problem is in English. We don't have an old English word for a simple person, that can be used stylistically in all grammatical contexts. Since I studied Greek for 6 years before studying the NT in Greek, (although I had read it in Greek), I just knew from other literature the meaning of anthropos. I am simply astounded that people can look at how man/anthropos line up in translation and decide from that that this word has a male semantic component. It doesn't.
Could you sit down with a French Bible and dictionary and expect from that alone to start speaking idiomatic French. Would you translate something from French into English without learning the language first. I highly doubt it but that is how some people are approaching Bible translation. What disrespect - to have less care for the skill required to translate the Bible than we have in our everyday life for translating ordinary documents from one language into another.
So over all 'someone' is a much more accurate translation than 'man' could ever be. 'Someone' can still refer to a man but the word used is not 'man' the male, 'husband' or any related word. I think if one read German it would all come together. Greek is closer to German on how the gender words are distributed. English can never replicate the Greek on this.
To say that that Christ, himself human, is the mediator between God and humans, is by far the more accurate translation, by a long shot. There is no comparison. However, I wouldn't want to call the other translations inaccurate, but the word 'man' can never communicate how much God wanted us to know that Christ became 'human.'This is a statement about the humanity of Christ, not about his maleness. He became a male human. But for the sake of the point that God is making, Christ became human. This was undertood originally by the gender neutral use of man. Nowadays there is some notion that there is a male semantic component that the TNIV is trying to hide. This is a complete fabrication and so silly that the TNIV scholars don't even want to stoop to answer this nonsense.
Mike,
It is possible that you are also thinking of aner. Aner is closer to our English word man. It usually means male, or even husband. But in some texts in Greek it is used as a gender neutral word. The very week that I was reading Dr. Grudem's book about how it is *never* used that way, I had just read a passage of Aristotle in Greek where it was specifically gender neutral. It meant men and women.
The problem is that the people writing these articles simply don't know classical Greek. That is the uncharitable truth that I am conflicted about saying. I am sorry.
"Anthropos *always* means person, gender neutral."
I'm sorry Suzanne, you are not correct. It CAN mean person but does not always need person. I look at the word more in depth in my response to Wayne.Aner, as you correctedly noted, does always mean Man or Husband. I, however, am not confusing the two. You did say one thing that was interesting. "The problem is that the people writing these articles simply don't know classical Greek." We are not talking about classical greek. We are talking about Koine greek. The two have substancial differences.
Wayne,Mike, you need to look at the lexicons again (all of the, especially ones which are based on sound philological and linguistic study). The lexical meaning of anthropos is 'person.' In the appropriate context, it can refer to a man, but it does not mean 'man.' This is a very important semantic distinction, one between lexical meaning and referential meaning.
Sure, why not.
There are three basica Lexical Definitions for Anthropos. There are up 9 (BDAG) but we can look at the three most popular.
Human Being - either sexMan - male personPerson, one, someone - Practically equivalent to Indefinite pronoun.
We can also use a first year text book - Mounce - Basics of Biblical Greek:Man, mankind, person, people, humankind, human being.
So, as I have stated, the word does at times mean person and it does at times mean man. I think you and I agree here. Suzanne clearly does not.
Also, Wayne, I'd like to note (as I stated earlier) that I am simply using Anthropos as a representative word. We could look at the Hebrew equivalents and then you'd have to deal with the passages that several people have noted (eg. Deut 21:15).
Wayne, you also challenged me to show examples where the word is incorrectly changed from the male pronoun. You want me to use Anthropos but I am simply going to use anEr since everyone agrees that it means man/husband.
Luke 14:TNIV: 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.' "
Notice the generic "Those".
And from the NIV:I tell you, not one of those men (anEr) who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.
You only wanted 1 but here is another:
Acts 20:3030 Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth ...
And from RSVand from among your own selves will arise men (andres) speaking perverse things, ...
And we can go on.
So, we need not even deal with the more controversial "anthropos" since we are all in agreement that "anEr" means man/husband.
Since, you both (Suzanne and Wayne) agree that anEr means man, can you at least agree that these two verses have been rendered incorrectly? Do we need more examples where clearly a Man is being referneced and yet the TNIV changes it or can we at least agree that AT TIMES the TNIV has improperly made neuter some masculine pronouns?
In Christ alone,mike
One note ... in the Luke 14:24 i wrote "anEr" becacuse it is the lexical form. However, I stated the exact form in Acts 20:30. So, for clarification, the word used in Luke 14:24 is andrOn.
In both verses, the lexical form of the word being used is anEr.
In Christ alone,mike
In the BDAG, mine is 1979, anthropos has the meaning of 'male human', *only* under meaning 2 b 'special combinations and meanings,' and it says that "the context requires such meanings". This means that it isn't the actual semantic content of the word, but given the context sometimes one has to use the word 'man' for the translations into English.
In the Liddell-Scott, they also acknowledge the translation, 'man' or the 'fellow' as #5 and add that this is 'with slight irony' or 'a sense of pity'. The term 'male person' simply never occurs.
These are the only references to male human that I can see.
Maybe you could quote your BDAG more exactly and explain the context in which anthropos means 'male person. '
My BDAG gives such meanings as fellow man, mortal man, sinful man, inner man, outer man, the new man, evil men and ordinary men. All of those are not specifically male. They were intended for all humans.
I'm not really sure why we have to argue about anthropos anymore since it is clear that the TNIV renders anEr in the generic. However, I suppose it could be important:
Okay
BDAG 3rd Edition Page 79 and 80
Under Anthropos
Quick definition:"'human being, man, person'.
Definition 1 "A person of either sex with focus on participation in the human race, a human being.
Definition 2. Same definition but with focus on limitations and wearkess (this is what you noticed).
Definition 3. a male person, man.
Under Definition 3 there are subheadings.
Heading A - Adult male, man
Mt 11:8, Lk 7:25 skleros ei a. Mt 25:24; cp. Lk 19:21f. In contrast to woman; Mt. 19:5; prob. Lk 13: 19 (cp vs. 21); Eph 5:31 (both Gen 2:24); 1 Cor 7:1.
Heading B - Husband Mt 19:10
Those are the top 3 definitions - the one I noted of course being number 3.
Here are the following.
Definition 4 "Practically equiv. to the infed. pron., " Someone, one, a person.
Definiton 5 a being in conflict at a transcendent level - the outer being, the inner being.
Definition 6 a person who has just mentioned in a narrative, the person
Definition 7 A certain person
Definition 8 friend
Definition 9 a heavenly being that looked like a person, a human figure
----------------------------------------------
In any case, as I noted, why discuss what we disagree about? We both agree that anEr means man/husband and the TNIV clearly renders it in the gender neutral. Can you at least say that the translation errors at this point?
Also, this must be stated - we are only dealing with Greek at the present. I happen to believe some of the more glarring errors are in the Old Testament.
In Christ alone,mike
Hi Tim,
I'm joining the discussion late, but one point I thought worth noting is that in deciding questions of translation, we can't beg the question in order to defend our pet version.
Case in point: I read a critique of the NIV and other modern translations which argued that these versions "can't be" correct because their rendering of Galatians has Paul wishing the Judaizers "would castrate themselves."
But what does the text say?
If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you alone. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If they refuse to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.... Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive someone who sins against me? - Matt. 18:15-21
Anyone notice the problem contained within this TNIV rendering of the text when one tries to appy this principle to an actual real situation?
The gender-neutral language of both TNIV and NRSV presents problems in this passage for reasons that may not have occurred to the translators, but which become obvious when we think about the practical application. The difficulty is, no respectable man in ancient times would have considered seeking a private interview with a woman concerning a personal grievance. If the woman were married, the aggrieved party would be expected to take up the matter with the woman's husband, who is understood to be her protector and public representative. A husband would be greatly offended if any man were to approach his wife directly and privately for such a purpose, and there is no reason to suppose that Jesus would have it otherwise. (We may recall the incident of the "woman at the well" in John chapter 4, where Jesus says, "Go, call your husband ..."). Married women were never to be dealt with privately, apart from their husbands, and the same holds true today, as any pastor knows very well. And we might also notice that a truly unisex understanding of the passage would require a woman to first go to a man privately also, without bringing along or consulting with any other person about the matter, including her husband. If she has not the boldness for such a private confrontation with a man, she cannot begin to observe the required procedure. And so it turns out that the passage cannot be gender-neutralized without doing violence to the cultural context and our common-sense allowances for the differences between men and women. The passage sets forth a male example, presumes a male reader, and has in view what we would call a "man to man" talk. Its application to women, as very often in Scripture, requires a certain amount of adjustment. This is the fatal flaw of all gender-neutral Bibles. The Bible for the most part focuses upon men, and the different roles of men and women (specified in the Bible itself) are such that many passages cannot be applied to women without important adjustments and qualifications being made. And these cannot be made in a translation. - from Bible Reasearcher.com
Just a couple of comments here.
First, not everyone agrees that anēr is always gender specific. For arguments that it is not, see this rather polemical article by Ann Nyland, and this one by Daniel B. Wallace which concludes: "All in all, the evidence is not great that aner sometimes refers to a person rather than specifically to an adult male. But it is compelling enough, in some of these examples, to warrant its force as a legitimate meaning for the term in Koine Greek." Luke 14:23 may well be an example of the more generic sense of anēr.
Second, in some of the cases which have been mentioned such as Deuteronomy 21:15, the TNIV reading can be justified simply as better English style than the alternative. The meaning of this verse is entirely clear in TNIV, as no one would imagine that a woman can have two wives. But it is better English, at least to some ears, to write "If someone has two wives..." rather than "If a man has two wives..." (NIV). This is independent of the argument about whether the Hebrew word here, אִישׁ 'ish, can be gender generic in places like Psalm 1:1 where the context does not demand a male only understanding.
My BDAG is structured hierarchically to show that 'male human' is one out a list of all the special meanings defined by context. So 'male human' is 2a which makes it clear that it is a context dependent meaning, a derived meaning.
In the singular it is the correct translation when a specific inidivual is being referred to. However, that does not add a male semantic component.
And aner is often generic, just as man is in English. It would make nonsense out of Greek texts if one did not read it this way.
However, I am glad to see exactly how it is that you have read the lexicon. It interests me to see how you are coming to your conclusions.
Best of luck in your language study.
Brian,
Every verse in the Bible needs to be read and applied with an understanding of the rest of the Bible. The critical issue with regards to the translation of this verse is not what principles would be implicit to the reader because of the social rules of the time or because of other Biblical principles, but what the text would mean to the audience. As I understand it, the audience at the time would have read the verse as refering to a singular generic "person" as opposed to a "man". Because of OTHER Biblical principles, they would have honored social rules. If we were to try to add to the translation of a passage any cultural/social/Biblical rules that would relate to the application of the passage, we would be going beyond the scope of the text and beyond the scope of translation.
"Most students of logic recognize that the argument from numbers is fallacious. It doesn't matter how many people believe something. If it is untrue, it still remains untrue."
Although this is true, most students of logic also realize that there are sources you can trust to be true enough to believe. I would say my taking issue with the TNIV from the recomendation of the previous list is not foolish on my part. It would be foolish if I trusted in nothing and spent all of my time researching every possible position on every opinion that came my way when many credilble men of God have provided their professional opinion. Obviously much should be studied, and nothing be taken for granted, but numbers can help people form opinions. Especially when those numbers are qualified to do so, and I am not.
hararite...you still did not address the problem contained in the TNIV rendering of this verse which clearly says:
If a brother or sister sins, go and point out the fault, just between the two of you alone.
Are you suggesting that the past (and current) culture, both of the mid east and here in the west, nullifies what is written at this verse in the TNIV? Are you also suggesting that there are other biblical imperatives elsewhere in Scripture that nullify what is said here in this verse in the TNIV? If so, then how can the TNIV rendering be correct?
This appears to be a pretty clear imperative from Christ, and the TNIV clearly says that a woman should privately approach a man, and that a man should privately approach a woman, even if that woman is married. So, I ask you, what is the more accurate translation, the TNIV as quoted above, or the ESV which says, If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone."?
The ESV, and other more literal translations, correctly render this in the masculine gender. The truth put forth here can still be applied to a woman with other appropriate biblical guidelines. The TNIV rendering really seems to cloud and confuse the issue of how a woman should handle the sin of another.
i'm not so sure that we can definitively say that the Psalm in question was an obscure reference to Jesus. We can only say that after early Christianity re-interpreted the Scriptures to get Christianity. Prior to that, the Jews had a different meaning altogether. This leads to the question: should the Jewish Scriptures be translated from a "Jewish" mindset (and thus favoring the Hebrew and Aramaic versions --the Masoretic texts--over the Greek Septuagint), or should they be translated from a "Christian" mindest (and thus favoring whichever version better represents the Christian re-interpretation of the texts), or should they be translated from a "Neutral" mindset (thus favoring the original text)?For instance, if we look at Isaiah from the "Hebrew" mindset, we can't get a virgin (and thus have a "young woman" in Isaiah and in Matthew). If we use the "Christian" mindset, then we make them both virgins (as the NIV does). If we use a "Neutral" mindset, then we have a "young woman" in Isaiah and a "virgin" in Matthew (as the NRSV does).Without being explicit as to which mindset we should use, it becomes difficult to criticise a particular translation.
"For instance, if we look at Isaiah from the "Hebrew" mindset, we can't get a virgin (and thus have a "young woman" in Isaiah and in Matthew). If we use the "Christian" mindset, then we make them both virgins (as the NIV does). If we use a "Neutral" mindset, then we have a "young woman" in Isaiah and a "virgin" in Matthew (as the NRSV does)."
Well, the primary meaning is in fact "young woman" but the word can mean virgin. The term is ambiguous in the Hebrew. Probably, if we had nothing else to go on, we would choose young woman.
However, the LXX interprets for us and goes with "virgin" and then we see virgin show up in the New Testament. With this information, I'd be inclined to go with "Virgin".
However, you do raise an interesting question. You state it somewhat differently than I would. I don't think early Christians are re-interpreting the text per se. At times, they are just capturing the meaning that the Jews have been oblivious to. At other times, however, you are correct that verses are used in a different sense than what was originally intended. In these cases, the Hebrew should probably reflect the original intention as best as we can tell (IMO).
In Christ alone,mike