Table of Contents ISSN: 1544-5143 CBMW JBMW Responds to the TNIV Executive Director Randy Stinson

Fall 2005

JOURNAL FOR BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD is a biannual publication of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Table of Contents ISSN: 1544-5143 CBMW JBMW Responds to the TNIV Executive Director Randy Stinson

JOURNAL STAFF 2 Editorial Editor Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Associate Editors Christopher W. Cowan 4 I Want My NIV: Gender Issues, Bible David W. Jones Translations, and the Rise of Evangelical Contributing Editor Rob Lister Individualism Assistant Editor Russell D. Moore Lance Johnson Senior Consulting Editors A Response to “Why the TNIV Bible?” J. Ligon Duncan, III 7 Wayne Grudem John Mark N. Reynolds Rebecca Jones Bruce A. Ware Design 10 Today’s New International Version: A Brief Bowin Tichenor Look at Its Methodology and Some Examples Contributors Justin Taylor R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Russell D. Moore Nancy Leigh DeMoss Todd L. Miles 19 Changing God’s Word Wayne Grudem JBMW Editorial Correspondence [email protected] Small Changes in Meaning Can Matter: The Subscription Correspondence 28 [email protected] Unacceptability of the TNIV Orders and Subscriptions Vern S. Poythress Single issue price $10.00. Subscriptions available at $15.00 per year. Canadian Subscriptions $20.00 per year. International Subscriptions $25.00 per year. Ten or more copies to the same 35 (Mis)Translating Psalm 1 address, $12.00 per year. Robert L. Cole Contact CBMW for institutional rates.

2825 Lexington Road · Box 926 Louisville, Kentucky 40280 Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve: How the 502.897.4065 (voice) 51 502.897.4061 (fax) TNIV Cuts Oﬀ the Ancient Conversation oﬃ[email protected] (e-mail) www.cbmw.org (web) Peter R. Schemm, Jr., and Michael E. Travers

UK Address: CBMW 9 Epsom Rd. 56 Choosing a Translation of the Bible Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, CV32 7AR Annual Subscription £10 Russell T. Fuller

The purpose of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is to set forth the teachings of the Bible about the complementary diﬀerences between 66 Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related men and women, created equal in the image of God, because these teachings are essential for obedi- Books in 2004 ence to Scripture and for the health of the family and the Church. Rob Lister CBMW is a member of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability and the National Association of Evangelicals. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 2-3 Editorial Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Dean, Southeastern College at Wake Forest Associate Professor of Christian Theology Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina

We oﬀer this issue of JBMW in do not pretend to know the hearts of the order to assist the reader in a charitable translators. They have stated clearly that yet discerning critique of Today’s New they want to produce an accurate and International Version (TNIV). It does faithful translation of the Scriptures.1 In not appear that evangelicals will soon and of itself, this is a commendable goal. come to an agreement on the use of But asking hard questions about motives gendered language in Bible translations. is still fair play. Yet, as this debate continues, we hope Second, it is naïve to think that to make substantive contributions that anyone comes to the task of translating honor God’s Word, as well as those with the Bible with a completely unbiased whom we disagree. We are aware that and objective posture. Even for the most other translations also deserve interac- skillful translators, pre-understand- tion. However, since the TNIV is a revi- ing and presuppositions exist. Though sion of the widely read NIV, we believe it the members of the CBT have clearly demands a concentrated response. stated some of their presuppositions, it Two mistakes ought to be avoided is appropriate to evaluate whether those in this debate. First, it is not our intent to presuppositions do, in fact, yield an “im- judge the motives of those on the Com- proved representation of the Word of mittee on Bible Translation (CBT). We God.”2 Thoughtful readers will still ask,

COUNCIL MEMBERS H. Wayne House James A. Stahr Thomas R. Edgar Beverly LaHaye J. I. Packer Stu Weber Daniel L. Akin Susan Hunt K. Erik Thoennes Jerry Falwell Gordon R. Lewis Paige Patterson William Weinrich Donald Balasa Elliott Johnson Bruce A. Ware John Frame Robert Lewis Dennis & Barbara Rainey Luder Whitlock James Borland Peter Jones Paul Gardner Crawford & Karen Loritts Adrian & Joyce Rogers Peter Williamson Austin Chapman Rebecca Jones BOARD OF REFERENCE W. Robert Godfrey Erwin Lutzer Robert Saucy Jack Cottrell Mary Kassian Hudson T. Armerding Bill H. Haynes John F. MacArthur, Jr. James Sauer J. Ligon Duncan, III Heather Moore S. M. Baugh David M. Howard Connie Marshner Siegfried Schatzmann Steve Farrar George W. Knight, III Wallace Benn R. Kent Hughes Richard Mayhue Thomas R. Schreiner Mary Farrar C. J. Mahaney Tal Brooke James B. Hurley Marty Minton F. LaGard Smith Wayne A. Grudem R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Harold O. J. Brown Paul Karleen J. P. Moreland R. C. Sproul Joshua Harris Dorothy Patterson Nancy Leigh DeMoss Charles & Rhonda Kelley J. Stanley Oakes Joseph M. Stowell, III Daniel Heimbach John Piper Lane T. Dennis D. James Kennedy Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. Larry Walker 2 FALL 2005

to what degree should “many diverse and present in the Hebrew text. This is par- complex cultural forces”3 influence the ticularly significant, argues Cole, because use of the English language in translating Psalms 1 and 2 abound with Messianic God’s Word? implications. We begin with Russell Moore’s The next article in this issue exam- concern that individualism among evan- ines a larger consequence of the TNIV’s gelicals—as evidenced, in part, by the translation. Michael Travers and I offer proliferation of Bibles marketed toward an inter-disciplinary look at the ancient specific groups—overshadows the fact conversation on gender that permeates that the Bible belongs to the community, literature and Scripture. By veiling the the church. Moore argues that only in gendered-language of the Scriptures for a context where evangelicals look more the English reader, the TNIV effectively to parachurch ministries and publish- mutes the authoritative word on gender ing houses than the church could the in this centuries-long discussion. production of the TNIV emerge. The Finally, Russell Fuller recognizes next article, by John Mark Reynolds, the need for modern translations of the responds directly to statements made by Bible, and yet he argues that modern Zondervan that explain their reasons for translators ought to follow certain proven publishing the TNIV. These statements, principles that have blessed the church Reynolds shows, are based on fallacious for centuries. Doing so will result in a reasoning or faulty assumptions and translation that is accurate and faithful to should not, therefore, guide the transla- the original languages, not one informed tion of Scripture. by contemporary ideologies or modern Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress sensibilities. each contribute articles drawing from We hope the work of these authors their years of evaluation of gender- will contribute to a critical approach neutral translations. Comparing several to the TNIV and the wider debate on passages of the TNIV with the NIV, they gender-specific language in translation. show how revisions distort or obscure More than that, we want to encourage the message of the text. Justin Taylor greater reverence for the written Word of also approaches translation methodology God. The efforts of the CBT to produce in the TNIV by evaluating certain key an accessible translation of the Scrip- texts. Ironically, the changes introduced tures are laudable. Yet the translation result at times in language contrary to philosophy guiding their work unneces- the CBT’s stated aim of accessibility by sarily distorts and obscures the message limiting readers’ interpretive options. of the text in many places. The authors Old Testament scholar Bob Cole contributing to this issue, then, cannot offers a thorough examination of the endorse or commend the TNIV as a TNIV’s rendering of Psalm 1. Analyzing reliable translation. the history of interpretation and verbal 1 and thematic ties between Psalms 1 and See “A Word to the Reader,” in The Holy Bible, Today’s New International Version, ix. 2, Cole argues that the TNIV has allowed 2 Ibid, xi. a generalizing interpretation of Psalm 1 3 Ibid. to dictate their translation. In so doing, the TNIV hides from the English reader the connections of Psalm 1 with Psalm 2 3 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 4-6 I Want My NIV: Gender Issues, Bible Translations, and the Rise of Evangelical Individualism

Russell D. Moore Dean, School of Theology Senior Vice President for Academic Administration The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

A gender-neutral Bible translation grandparents had worked through in the would never have flown in my home generations before. church. Actually, no Bible translation That era is now long gone, and I do would have made it long, except one. not really want it back. I do not usually I grew up in a KJV-only church. It preach from the King James Version (al- is not that my congregation defended the though I love it), largely because we now King James Version as the only inspired have translations that are more accurate, text. Nor did we disparage other transla- translating the original words of God into tions as deﬁcient. In truth, we did not contemporary language that unbelievers really know there were other translations. and believers can understand. What I do Everyone had always used the old King want back, however, is the sense that the James, from the ﬁve-year olds memorizing Bible forms the church, and, thus, that the verses for “Sword Drills” to senior adult Bible belongs to the community—not just ladies crocheting texts to hang in their to the individual. living rooms. There were, of course, many draw- My Own Personal Bible backs to this one common text, drawbacks This evangelical individualism ex- that explain the need for contemporary plains much of what is going on in the translations. But in moving beyond this current debates over “gender-neutral” era, we must admit that we have lost Bible translations such as Today’s New something. A pastor could say “and the International Version (TNIV) and The glory of the Lord shone round about New Living Translation (NLT). For too them” in virtually any context, and the long, we have assumed that the Bible is congregation would know exactly to primarily about individual Bible study what he was referring. As teenagers, we and personal devotion. Thus, our publish- read and meditated on the same texts ers give us niche Bibles in every possible our parents and grandparents and great- variety—Bibles for sportsmen, Bibles for 4 FALL 2005

teens, Bibles for middle-aged women, on the foundation of the apostles and even Bibles bound in leather, the color of prophets” (Eph 2:20 ESV). Nonetheless, one’s favorite sports team. the church is given the responsibility to It is perhaps not insignificant that be “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 many of the more “gender-accurate” Tim 3:15 NASB). Christ Jesus has given Bible translations originated in attempts to his church pastors and teachers who to produce a children’s Bible version. For are to guard the church from error and to generations, evangelicals have sought protect the flock of God from dangerous to mediate the Scripture to children via wolves. “story Bibles” and even animated videos Contemporary evangelicalism, that convey the “important” nuggets of the however, looks too often to parachurch Bible—often by robbing children of the ministries and publishers for this function, narrative flow of Scripture itself. When often corporations with accountability this happens, the result is most often a to donor boards rather than to churches. Christian moralism tailored especially for Thus, publishers flood churches with children: “Jesus shared; you share.” curricula—and the Bible translations to This phenomenon is grounded in go with them—often then shaping the an even deeper contemporary evangeli- “personal Bible studies” of church mem- cal commitment to the individual as the bers, with little or no accountability to locus of God’s saving purposes. Our un- the larger Body of Christ. The Christian derstanding of the church so often seems individual then makes decisions about simply like a place where individuals can doctrine, and the words of the Bible itself, learn how to be a better Christian, and not on the basis of faithful teaching from where individuals can pool their money the pulpit, but from the recommendation together for missions. of a local bookseller. It is in this context, And so, supporters of the TNIV and only in this context, that the TNIV make the case that a “gender-accurate” could emerge. translation is necessary so that little girls Thankfully, there is in some seg- can see that the text is written to them— ments of evangelicalism a recovery of the and not just to “men.” It is tempting for church’s role in teaching and preaching, those of us who are opponents of such including in the arena of Bible translation. translations to focus only on translation When the TNIV was released, the South- principles, or on the theological implica- ern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the tions of tampering with the meaning of Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) the texts. But, beyond this, we must ask a immediately expressed concerns about the more basic question: Where is the church translation philosophy behind the new in this discussion? version. The SBC messengers, sent from churches all over the country, moreover, Reclaiming the Bible for the directed its LifeWay Christian Stores not to sell or recommend the TNIV. Churches This is a healthy development—and As evangelical Protestants, we do not only because it takes seriously the ver- not believe that the Bible is formed by bal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures the church, but that the church is formed and, thus, the importance of accurate Bible by the Bible. That is, the church does not translation. It is healthy precisely because invest the Scriptures with their authority. pastors and church leaders are talking Rather, the church recognizes and is “built 5 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

about Bible translation. What must come very good thing. of this, however, is not just a general denunciation of “gender-neutral Bibles.” Instead, we must get at why our people want gender-neutral Bibles—because we live in a gender-neutral society. That means that churches must do more than simply warn against bad Bibles. We must instruct our people what the Bible is all about—what Jesus told us on the road to Emmaus: It is all about Christ (Luke 24:27). This is the reason, after all, that the apostle Paul speaks of the Roman, Galatian, and Ephesian believers—both male and female—as “sons” of God. They are “in Christ”—and ﬁnd their identity in him. There is a reason why passages about the righteous “man” in the Psalms should not be translated in the plural—because there is no plural group of righteous ones, only one righteous Son of Man. In order to drive our people back to the glorious truth of the Bible’s focus, we must stop treating our Bibles and our biblical sermons as though the individual believer is the sum and substance of Scripture. We do this with endless “how- to” sermons and moralistic lectures from Scripture. Instead of pointing believers to their identity in Christ, we point them right back to their personally tailored Bible translations with a personally tailored message for them. In this context, a gender-neutral Bible is inevitable. If, however, churches take seriously the task of instructing believers in the importance of all the words of Scrip- ture—and applying its meaning to the whole body of believers—then perhaps our churches will be less susceptible to whatever fads blow in from Grand Rap- ids or Downers Grove. This might mean that the Christian seeking a Bible might go ﬁrst to his pastor’s study, and only then to the bookseller. And that would be a 6 FALL 2005 JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 7-9 A Response to “Why the TNIV Bible?”1

John Mark N. Reynolds Director, Torrey Honors Institute Associate Professor of Philosophy Biola University, La Mirada, California

Here is the argument, such as circles, pushing ideas passé in most of it is, supplied by Zondervan for why the Academy, who provide a wash of we need a new translation2 (Note: I academic respectibility for this disaster have edited a book with Zondervan because it suits their desire to change and think they are swell folk. Their the propositions of theology. Of course comments are in italics). They say, it has nothing to do with translation any way. The Bible is what it is. It is not going Perhaps the most important to get more “story like” or less propo- reason to produce a new trans- sitional to please today’s young adults. lation is to reach today’s generation of 18 to 34-year-olds, For example, they’re more likely a generation that is leaving to relate to stories and personal the church in record numbers. experiences than to traditional . . . Part of the reason for this expressions of propositional mass exodus is that today’s truth. For them, authentic reli- generation thinks differently gion is a [sic] much about HOW than previous generation [sic]. they live as WHAT they believe.

I dispute this as a generalization. Well, good. Both ideas are im- What do we mean by a diﬀerent way of portant. I seem to recall people saying thinking? There is not a diﬀerent way of this about my generation as well. Why thinking. An equally possible hypothesis: not teach them the value of both? There are students who are badly educated, post-literate, and unable to make While older forms of English good arguments. There is a tiny group may not present a problem for of post-modern scholars in evangelical some readers, they can pres- 7 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

ent barriers to understand- small modiﬁcation of the old translation? ing and fully engaging the Bible for today’s generation A 2004 Harris Interactive because they’ve grown up using Poll showed that 59% of 18- more contemporary English. 34 year-olds (churched or un- churched) said the Bible was When was this not true? Why sud- relevant to their lives, yet more denly does this common occurrence of than half (53%) said they never language change demand a new transla- read the Bible or read it less tion? Every generation of young people than once a year. Clearly there has their own jargon and identity. Yet in is a need to reach this audience. American history, when the Bible was most respected and read, there was ac- Key question: How many of these tually a giant gulf between the language kids read any book, let alone a book as of the Bible and that of the youth. This hard as the Bible? Is there any evidence was true of every generation in the USA here, at all, that translation gets in the up to recent times. No one demanded way of their reading the Bible? Does their Bible speak as they did in order to anyone who finds the NIV too hard go to church. No one demanded a Bible or too dated really want to read the in West Virginia dialect. No one de- Bible, really? (Though, like learning a manded a Bible written in Flapper-speak. second language, everyone says they do.) These questions are not answered. In addition, the TNIV translators were mindful of what they There are 32 million “spiritu- were working on: Today’s New ally-intrigued” 18-34 year- International Version. It is olds open to Christianity. intended for English-speaking There are 8 million twenty- readers no matter where they live. somethings on the verge of English usage keeps changing— disengaging from the church. between 1993 and 2003, Mer- Barna Research Group found riam-Webster made 100,000 that 40% of churched children changes and added more than stop attending church as adults. 10,000 words and phrases to 77% of 18-34 year-olds prefer its collegiate dictionary. Thirty the text of the TNIV; 72% years have passed since the NIV of 18-34 year-olds find the was released. TNIV text easier to understand.

This is a bizarrely irrelevant fac- I would love to see the controls on toid. The question is—Have the relevant this study! I have heard that 72 percent words of standard English changed of people prefer New Coke. In any case, much? How many of these “new words” would these people actually read the text are in areas unrelated to anything ap- when it is released? Is the translation any pearing in the Bible (e.g., blog, wok)? good or overly paraphrastic? I assume Fundamentally, is this not about one 100 percent of my students would ﬁnd major change: gender use? Would not a comics version of the Republic easier the rest of the changes amount to a to understand, and even preferable, to a 8 FALL 2005

standard work, but I doubt they should go that way. The opinions of the market are simply not relevent, even if true. If the translation places too much “of our culture” between the reader and what is, after all, a very old book, then it is perhaps worse than useless to them.

According to JET Market Re- search, 85% of 18-34-year-olds surveyed said they would like a copy of the full TNIV when it is released in 2005.

Who said “no?” I am not a fan of the translation, but I will buy a copy. What exactly does this question prove?

1The following commentary previously appeared on 22 Feb 2005 on the website of John Mark N. Reynolds. Online: http://www.johnmarkreynolds. com/2005/02/why-tniv-bible-is-important.html. Used by permission. 2“Why the TNIV Bible?” [cited 22 Feb 2005]. Online: http://www.tniv.info/why.php.

9 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 10-18 Today’s New Interna- tional Version: A Brief Look at Its Methodology and Some Examples

Justin Taylor Director of Theology Executive Editor Desiring God Ministries, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Introduction one part of the body hurts, we all should Before examining a few transla- hurt. And one part of the body should not tion choices of Today’s New Interna- rejoice in the hurt of another part! And tional Version (TNIV) and the meth- yet there is something more important odology behind it, I think it would be than our limbs: the truth of God and the wise to express gratitude to God for the health of the church. That is why debate Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) will be with us till Christ returns. John for the TNIV. They labored over God’s Stott said it well: “The proper activity of word for ten years in order to produce this professing Christians who disagree with translation for the church. The brothers one another is neither to ignore, nor and sisters on the translation committee to conceal, nor even to minimize their 1 are some of the finest biblical scholars in differences, but to debate them.” That the world, and they made an enormous does not mean, however, that we take any investment of time, talent, and energy pleasure in the necessity of participating over the course of the past decade. We in such debates. can be, and should be, grateful for their Our aim in this debate should be labors. Countless people will read this Bi- the glorification of God in Christ, the love of ble. Through its words and by the Spirit, our neighbors as ourselves, and the edifica- they may meet our great covenant Lord, tion of the church. I pray that the concerns being convicted, instructed, and edified. enumerated below—and expressed more For that, we should thank God. fulsomely and eloquently by others— Along with that expression of grati- would be used of God to strengthen, not tude comes regret for debate. Doubtless undermine, the church and her commit- those who were involved with this trans- ment to God’s holy word. lation project have been on the receiving end of a great deal of criticism. When 10 FALL 2005

The TNIV Website The TNIV does not remove Despite a proliferation of journal these attributes or “neuter” articles, academic papers, festschrift es- any passages of Scripture. The says, blogs, debates, and books, the fact TNIV uses generic language remains that most people in our churches only where the meaning of remain unfamiliar with the key lines of the text was intended to in- argumentation from both sides. One clude both men and women. resource at their disposal is the TNIV These changes reflect a more website: http://tniv.info. What one dis- precise rendering of Greek 3 covers upon using this site is a mixture and Hebrew words. of clarification and inconsistency. Note that the italicized bold words The Goals of the TNIV are in the original. The claim is that ev- Those who visit this site will be ery instance of generic language in the helped in understanding some of the TNIV reflects the authorial intention of rudiments of translation theory and the biblical authors to include both men what the TNIV in particular was trying and women. In responding to another to achieve. Like all Bible translators, question, they write, they sought to balance the twin goals of accuracy and clarity, producing a version All gender-related changes of the Bible that faithfully represents in in the TNIV are made to English the meaning of the original text, update masculine terminol- and is at the same time clear and under- ogy that has generic intent standable for today’s readers.2 and is often misunderstood This is an important point for by today’s generations. Refer- laypeople to understand. The translators ences originally intended to be masculine remain mascu- of the TNIV have the same purpose as 4 translators of essentially literal transla- line in the TNIV. tions. But they disagree on methodology, the way in which one seeks to achieve Again note the universalizing word those ends. “all.” The claim is that every instance of generic language in their translation is warranted by an underlying generic Gender-Neutral or Gender meaning or application in the original Accurate? text. No male-specific references have The most controversial aspect of been changed. But can such reasoning the TNIV has been its so-called “gender really be sustained consistently? I suggest neutrality.” But according to the TNIV that it cannot. website, they do not consider their translation “gender-neutral.” 1 Cor 15:21 as a Test Case For example, consider the TNIV’s The TNIV is not gender translation of 1 Cor 15:21, in comparison neutral; it is in fact “gender to the NIV. accurate.” Gender neutrality suggests the removal of specific male or female attributes. 11 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

NIV: For since death came “person”; but, since it refers through a man, the resurrec- here to Christ, it should be tion of the dead comes also translated “man.” through a man. TNIV: For since death came • An initial response is to through a human being, the question the nomenclature resurrection of the dead “change in meaning.” The comes also through a human phrase has apparently been being. chosen for its rhetorical effect, since it often does not In this verse the TNIV renders apply to the situations in anthropos as “human being,” an obviously which it is quoted. Consider generic term. Based upon the criteria the present text. If anthropos cited above for “gender accurate” trans- can mean either “man” or lation—namely, that “the TNIV uses “person,” than [sic] the TNIV generic language only where the meaning decision to choose here “per- of the text was intended to include both son” can hardly be called a men and women”—one would have to “change in meaning.” Our conclude that the TNIV translators be- critics may want to quarrel lieve the use of anthropos in 1 Cor 15:21 with the translation decision was “intended to include both men and we have made, but calling women”—despite the fact, as the TNIV that decision here a “change acknowledges, that Paul is saying that in meaning” is both inaccu- death came through Adam (a man) and rate and unfair. resurrection through Christ (a man). • But what about the deci- Furthermore, based on their prin- sion? Why “person,” when ciple that “[r]eferences originally in- Christ is demonstrably male? tended to be masculine remain masculine The issue here, of course, in the TNIV,” one must conclude that is whether Paul intends to the TNIV translators do not think that highlight the fact that Christ anthropos in 1 Cor 15:21 was “originally was a male human being or intended to be masculine”—despite the that he was simply as [sic] a fact that Paul is causally tracing death human being. The NLT, an- and resurrection to two individual men, other gender accurate transla- not two women. tion, chooses the former here; This would be such a strange con- and the TNIV uses just this clusion that it seems even the TNIV language in speaking about itself rejects it. In the TNIV website’s Adam and Christ in vv. 47-49 “Most-Requested Passage Explanations” (see also Rom. 5:12, 19). And section, they address their critics. Their some might argue that the explanation, in full, is as follows: representative significance of Adam and Christ hinges A “change in meaning” oc- on their being men. But this curs in this verse, our critics does not seem to be the point claim. The Greek anthropos that Paul wants to stress. As can mean either “man” or the one who inaugurated the 12 FALL 2005

eschatological resurrection being, that is the focus here.” Now I do from the dead, Christ is the not know a single person who thinks that “firstfruits of those who have the maleness of Adam and Christ is the fallen asleep” (v. 20). That main point of this passage. The question is, his resurrection includes is, what is so problematic with identifying within it, in principle, the two men as, well, men? resurrection of all who belong The TNIV response again shows to him, men or women. It is poor reasoning. It is a non sequitur; that his identification with human is, the conclusion does not follow from beings, not the fact of his be- the premises. The presupposition seems ing a male human being, that to be that if maleness is not the focus or is the focus here.5 the highlight, that one need not translate a word that points to males. Let us examine this response one Consider the following passages step at a time. First, they suggest that the from John (all from the TNIV): charge of “change in meaning” is merely rhetorical and not substantive. Their ar- • John 1:6—There was a man gument is as follows: (1) Anthropos can sent from God whose name mean either “man” or “person.” (2) The was John. TNIV decided to translate anthropos in • John 3:1—Now there was a this verse as “person.” (3) Therefore, this Pharisee, a man named Nico- translation choice cannot be called a demus who was a member of “change in meaning.” But this is not good the Jewish ruling council. reasoning, as can be shown by a thought • John 4:29—“Come, see a experiment. Imagine that we found a man who told me everything translation that commanded us to “walk I ever did. Could this be the not according to the flesh but according Messiah?” to the wind” (Rom 8:4). One could eas- • John 7:51—“Does our law ily reason: (1) Pneuma can mean either condemn a man without first “spirit” or “wind.” (2) This translation hearing him to find out what decided to translate pneuma in this verse he has been doing?” as “wind.” (3) Therefore, this translation • John 9:1—As he went choice cannot be called a “change in along, he saw a man blind meaning.”6 from birth. The second stage of their response is to deal with the actual translation de- One can easily imagine the TNIV cision. Why, after all, did the TNIV feel translating all of these references of an- compelled to translate anthropos as “per- thropos as “person,” and then patiently son” when clearly Christ, who is male, is explaining that (of course) the apostle the obvious referent? They answer: “The John was not intending to highlight these issue here, of course, is whether Paul characters’ maleness, and that is not the intends to highlight the fact that Christ focus of these verses. was a male human being or that he was But there is an even more seri- simply as [sic] a human being. . . . It is ous inconsistency at play in the TNIV his identification with human beings, explanation. Careful readers will note not the fact of his being a male human that this explanation—namely, that 13 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

male-specific terms need not be used if When the Lord’s People Go the referent’s maleness is not in focus or Marching In highlighted—is quite different than their The TNIV translation of generic overarching principle that states, “The language has certainly been its most con- TNIV uses generic language only where troversial feature. But I believe it is im- the meaning of the text was intended to portant to see that this is but one part of a include both men and women.” Instead, larger methodological problem—namely, it now becomes something like, “The the separation of form and meaning in TNIV uses generic language only where the interest of understandability. When the meaning of the text was intended to the translators encounter a translated include both men and women, or when a term that they feel will be misunderstood male-specific reference is not really the main by “today’s generation of readers,” form point or focus of the text.” becomes virtually inconsequential as long It is difficult for me to see how this as the referent of the term is preserved. principle is consistently applied even To illustrate this phenomenon, in the same context as 1 Cor 15:21. As consider a word unrelated to grammatical they point out in their explanation, they or biological gender: hagios. Historically, repeatedly translate anthropos as “man” in this term has usually been translated 1 Cor 15:47–49: “saints.” But the TNIV finds this translation problematic. As they explain on The first man was of the their site, “The TNIV translators were dust of the earth; the second concerned to reflect the original sense man is of heaven. As was of the term and avoid confusion with the the earthly man, so are those process of canonization within religious who are of the earth; and as tradition.”7 Donald Madvig, one of the is the heavenly man, so also TNIV translators, expands on this ex- are those who are of heaven. planation: “Most people understand the And just as we have borne the term ‘saint’ to refer to people of excep- image of the earthly man, so tional holiness.”8 shall we bear the image of the While understandable, I do not heavenly man. find such an explanation compelling. I am glad they chose, at times, to translate By translating the reference to hagios as “holy people.”9 But if the trans- Christ as “man” in vv. 47–49, are they lators think it is mistaken to understand intending to imply that Paul wants to hagios as a reference to people of excep- highlight in this passage the masculinity tional holiness, I am not sure that “holy of Adam and Christ? people” is going to help matters. In fact, This is but one illustration of the it would often exacerbate the problem. way in which the TNIV translates terms For example, consider what would hap- with grammatical gender. I conclude that pen if we translated hagios with “holy in at least this instance, their transla- people” in Rom 12:13: “Contribute to tion is unwarranted and their explana- the needs of the holy people and seek to tions are confusing and inconsistent. show hospitality.” So, more often than not, the TNIV chooses to translate hagios simply as “people,” “God’s people,” or “the Lord’s 14 FALL 2005

people.”10 Of course hagios ultimately in order to convey a corporate sense of refers to the people of God. But so do responsibility upon Israel? One need not translated terms like “temple,” “sheep,” answer in the affirmative in order to grant “bride,” “household,” and “body” (all of that it is a legitimate question for Bible which, incidentally, can be easily mis- readers to ask. But the TNIV, in effect, understood). If God wanted to convey decides that issue for you, cutting off the the sense of “God’s people,” it would be question before it is even raised. easy to do so in Greek.11 But he did not, and our translations should not give the On the Prevention impression that he did. The irony is that in bypassing “form” of Misunderstanding 12 The prevention of misunderstand- in favor of “meaning,” the translators ing is a laudable goal. But do we ever stop have obscured for English-only readers to ask, “What if the terms in the original the very meaning of the term as it was to language were misunderstood in the be understood in its original context. Ex- original context?” For example, it seems cept in the few places where “holy people” highly likely that hagios, from the root was chosen as the translation, English for “holy,” must have suggested to many readers of the TNIV can no longer see that those in the church were claiming a the rich connection to positional sancti- label of exceptional holiness. It also seems fication. In other words, the translators likely that Ioudaios was thought to refer have deprived English-only readers of a to every Jew. Assuming the validity of the designation that God intended for the supposition, is it not troubling to think readers of his word to know. that (1) God knew that these terms could be misunderstood, (2) he could have Jews and Jewish Leaders easily inspired other words that would Another example where this occurs accurately identify the true referents, yet in the TNIV is found when they render (3) he chose not to? the word “Jews” as “Jewish leaders.”13 I would argue that it is not the job of the translator to clear away all possible mis- Interpretation vs. Translation There is an irony in that the transla- conceptions; it is the job of the translator tors’ methodology might end up creating to translate faithfully the original words the opposite of what they intend. While of Scripture into clear, readable English. it is an admirable goal to make the Bible There was a clear and simple way for the more accessible to today’s generation, biblical authors to write “Jewish leaders” the reality is that the range of interpre- (Ioudaios prōtous)—see Acts 28:17. But in tive options shrinks when the translators many other passages, God inspired the supply them for us. In other words, am- authors to use the term “Jews” (Ioudaios) biguity often creates greater accessibility! without being more specific. But the I would argue that standard translations TNIV changes all of these references to for study, preaching, and memorization “Jewish leaders” instead. should make the options more transpar- Could it be that in some of these ent, rather than attempting to clarify cases, the biblical authors, though im- ambiguity through an overly interpretive mediately referring to the leaders and translation. not referring to every Jew without excep- tion, chose to use the more general term 15 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The response to my perspective is both confusion and license usually that all translation is interpreta- in translation.14 tion. There is a sense in which that is true, and there is a sense in which that reason- In my view, dynamic-equivalent ing is fallacious. Leland Ryken draws a translations like the TNIV make un- helpful distinction here: necessary interpretative decisions on behalf of the reader. The intent is greater [T]here is a crucial diﬀerence clarity and less confusion. The result is between linguistic interpre- that the reader has less options to choose tation (decisions regarding from; and, therefore, must rely upon the what English words best experts to provide him with the correct express Hebrew or Greek reading. words) and thematic inter- Here are some examples—none pretation of the meaning of a related to gender—where the TNIV’s text. Failure to distinguish choice of translation limits the range of between these two types interpretations and, in fact, unnecessarily of interpretation has led to interprets the meaning for the reader:

ESV TNIV Reference the Spirit the spirit of leadership Num 27:18

obedience of faith faith and obedience Rom 1:5; 16:28

works of the law observing the law Rom 3:20, 27; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10, etc. who hopes for what he sees? who hopes for what they already Rom 8:24 have? we are being killed all day long we face death all day long Rom 8:36

desiring to show his wrath although choosing to show his Rom 9:22 wrath law of works law that requires works Rom 3:27

the law of marriage the law that binds her to him Rom 7:12

did they stumble in order that they might did they stumble so as to fall be- Rom 11:11 fall? yond recovery? owe no one anything let no debt remain outstanding Rom 13:8

love bears all things [love] always protects 1 Cor 13:7

husband of one wife faithful to his wife 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6

dead works acts that lead to death Heb 6:1

the law of liberty the law that gives freedom Jas 2:12

he was foreknown he was chosen 1 Pet 1:20

16 FALL 2005

All of these examples, I would In some cases, the translators’ choice will suggest, are overly interpretive. Some of prevent the reader from asking the right the interpretations I agree with; others questions or making the correct con- I disagree with. But the point remains nections. But in other cases, using such the same: The translator has unneces- translations may suggest another faithful sarily done the job of the reader and the way of interpreting the text. teacher. What is a mistake, I would argue, is to make a dynamic-equivalent transla- Conclusion tion like the TNIV a primary translation I close this paper by attempting to for studying, memorizing, teaching, and cut oﬀ three possible misconceptions. preaching.

First, despite the impression one may 1 John R. W. Stott, Christ the Controversialist (Downers have from the above, I do not disagree Grove: InterVarsity, 1970), 22. with every translation decision that the 2 Kenneth Barker, a member of the CBT, expresses TNIV has made! There are numerous these goals as the desire to be (1) “as faithful to the original text as possible” and (2) “equally faithful to places where the TNIV is an improve- the target or receptor language” (See Kenneth Barker, ment over the NIV, and we can be grate- “The Balanced Translation Philosophy of the TNIV,” ful for those improvements. n.p. [cited 21 Sep 2005]. Online: http://www.tniv. info/light/balanced.php). Second, when criticisms are ex- 3 Responding to the question, “Is the TNIV gender amined in isolation, one can ask if the neutral?” in “Common TNIV Bible Questions and issues are really that significant. But we Answers,” n.p. [cited 21 Sep 2005]. Online: http:// www.tniv.info/qanda.php#GENDER_N (emphasis must remember that we are not dealing in original). here with an ordinary document. We are 4 Responding to the question, “How does the TNIV dealing with the translation of God’s very differ from the NIV” in “Common TNIV Bible word. Every word was inspired by him. Questions and Answers,” n.p. [cited 21 Sep 2005]. Online: http://www.tniv.info/qanda.php (emphasis The New Testament authors often built in original). arguments based upon a single word or 5 “Passages Commonly Asked About,” n.p. [cited a single grammatical form found in the 21 Sep 2005]. Online: http://www.tniv.info/bible/ 15 sample_resultsingle.php?rowid=50. Hebrew Old Testament. Jesus, quoting 6 One might object that the analogy is unfair. While Deut 8:3, said, “Man lives . . . by every “man” is a subset of “person,” “wind” and “spirit” are word that comes from the mouth of God” two different things entirely. But this misses the point. The point is that just because one has used a possible (Matt 4:4). “Every word of God proves meaning does not mean that it is the correct meaning. true” (Prov 3:5). No translation is infalli- And if it is an incorrect meaning, or against previous ble. But when there are systemic changes translations that had the correct meaning, then it is a change of meaning. made to a translation of God’s word, and 7 “Clarity in Contemporary English,” n.p. [cited 21 those changes obscure or distort God’s Sep 2005]. Online: http://www.tniv.info/story/clar- intended meaning for his people, that is ity.php. 8 a matter worthy of our concern. Donald H. Madvig, “A CBT Member’s Response to the ‘Statement of Concern about the TNIV,’” 4. Cited Third, some readers may get the 21 Sep 2005. Online: http://www.tniv.info/pdf/Don- impression that I see absolutely no value aldMadvig.pdf. 9 for dynamic-equivalent translations. I See Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:4, 12, 26. strongly believe that the church should 10 See Acts 9:13, 32; 26:10; Rom 8:27; 15:25–26, 31; be united around an “essentially literal 16:2; 1 Cor 6:1, 2; 14:33; 16:15; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1; 13:13; translation.” And yet at the same time I Eph 1:15, 18; 3:18; 6:18; Phil 4:21, 22; 1 Tim 5:10; Philem 1:5, 7; Jude 3; Rev 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 14:12; believe that other versions may be used 16:6; 17:6; 18:20, 24; 19:8. as a supplement to regular Bible reading. 11 See, e.g., Heb 4:9; 11:25. 17 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

12 For more on this crucial theme, see C. John Collins’s excellent essay, “Without Form, You Lose Meaning,” included as an appendix in Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Transla- tion (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 295–319. 13 See John 1:19; 5:10, 16; 7:1, 11; 9:22; 18:14, 28, 36; 19:31, 38; 20:19; Acts 13:50; 21:11; 28:17, 19. 14 Ryken, The Word of God in English, 85. 15 See Matt 2:15; 4:10; 13:35; 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 4:8; 20:42, 43; John 8:17; 10:34; 19:37; Acts 23:5; Rom 4:3, 9, 23; 15:9–12; 1 Cor 6:16; Gal 3:8, 10,13; Heb 1:7; 2:12; 3:13; 4:7; 12:26; Gal 3:16—as cited by Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 138.

18 FALL 2005 JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 19-27 Changing God’s Word1

Wayne Grudem Research Professor of Bible and Theology Phoenix Seminary, Scottsdale, Arizona

Eight years ago I compared fifteen gender-neutral translation philosophy of Bible passages in the New International the 2005 TNIV is essentially the same as Version (NIV) and the NIV-Inclusive that of the NIVI that caused the contro- Language Edition (NIVI), which had versy of 1997 in the first place. It is the already been published in England.2 same committee giving us essentially the Zondervan and the International Bible same Bible. Society were quietly making plans to publish a similar gender-neutral NIVI in Genesis 1:26–27 the United States, but when the Chris- Current NIV: Then God said, “Let tian public saw the actual changes that us make man in our image. . . .” So God had been made to the NIVI in the inter- created man in his own image . . . male ests of “inclusive language,” many decided and female he created them. they could not trust such a translation. TNIV (2005): Then God said, “Let Now in 2005 Zondervan and the us make human beings in our image. . . IBS have published another revision of .” So God created human beings in his the NIV called Today’s New Interna- own image . . . male and female he created tional Version (TNIV). Has it corrected them [identical to NIVI (1996)]. the gender-neutral translation policies Change in meaning: The change that were found in the NIVI? Yes, in one from singular “man” to plural “human of the fifteen passages (Prov 29:13). But beings” obscures the unity of the race as in the other fourteen passages it is disap- “man” (indicated by the singular Hebrew pointing to see that nothing has changed noun ‘adam). The word “man” in English (in eleven passages) or that partial cor- can mean either “a male human being” rections were made that did not really or “the human race,” and thus it is the solve the problem (in three passages). In best translation for Hebrew ‘adam, which spite of a handful of helpful changes, the can also refer either to man in distinc- 19 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

tion from woman (Gen 2:22, 25) or to sit in the seat of mockers. the human race as a whole (as here). The NIVI (1996): Blessed are those TNIV thus fails to convey as much of the who do not walk in the counsel of the meaning of ‘adam as it could in English wicked or stand in the way of sinners or today. Why is the male-oriented aspect sit in the seat of mockers. of the meaning of the Hebrew word TNIV (2005): Blessed are those removed? who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit Genesis 5:2 in the company of mockers [identical in Current NIV: He created them gender language to NIVI (1996)]. male and female. . . . And when they were Change in meaning: Here the created, he called them “man.” word “man” means “a male human be- TNIV (2005): He created them ing,” and it is the correct translation of male and female. . . . And when they were the singular Hebrew word ‘ish, which created, he called them “human beings” (except in special idioms) means “man” [identical to NIVI (1996)]. in distinction from woman, and surely Change in meaning: God’s activity is singular, not plural. The Hebrew text of naming is important in the Bible. Here holds up an individual righteous man as the TNIV has renamed the human race, an example that all Israel should imitate. refusing to use the male-oriented name The next verse says more about this man: “man.” But in the previous four chapters “His delight is in the law of the Lord, and this same singular Hebrew word ‘adam on his law he meditates day and night” (v. has been used eight times to refer to man 2). But the TNIV changes “the man” to in distinction from woman (as in “The “those,” removing the concrete example man and his wife were both naked, and of an individual man. It changes the they felt no shame,” Gen 2:25), and also Bible’s singulars to plurals in hundreds ﬁve times as the proper name “Adam.” of such cases (as it does here), in each So Hebrew readers would hear clear case removing one of the primary teach- male nuances when God named the hu- ing methods of the Bible: holding up man race ‘adam in Gen 5:2, and “man” is an individual man as an example for all the best English translation. The TNIV believers to imitate. incorrectly removes the male-oriented The result is (1) an incorrect trans- aspect of the name God gave the hu- lation of the singular noun ‘ish, (2) a loss man race. of the picture of the moral courage of a TNIV supporters say the change solitary righteous man standing against was necessary because the English lan- plural sinners, (3) a shift away from the guage has changed. But people today Bible’s emphasis on the relationship still understand that “man” can mean the between God and individual persons to human race, as in the Wall Street Journal a greater emphasis on groups, (4) a loss headline about the recent tsunami, “Man, of any possibility of seeing this “blessed Nature, and Disaster.”3 man” in the Psalms as a foreshadowing of Christ, the truly righteous Man, and (5) a loss of historical accuracy, because the Psalm 1:1 original writer of Psalm 1 did not speak Current NIV: Blessed is the man of “those” but of “a man.” who does not walk in the counsel of the The change to plural also produces wicked or stand in the way of sinners or 20 FALL 2005

a comical picture in verse 3: “He is like a ment of this verse in Christ’s crucifixion tree planted by streams of water, which in John 19:36. This part of Psalm 34 yields its fruit in season” (NIV) becomes speaks of God’s protection of an indi- “they are like a tree. . .” (TNIV). All God’s vidual righteous man: God protects “his people around the world are like one tree? bones.” Why does the TNIV refuse to Another amusing example is a whole translate hundreds of third-person mas- group of sluggards now reaching into one culine singular pronouns in the original dish: “Sluggards bury their hands in the languages as third-person masculine dish and are too lazy to bring them back singular pronouns in English? What is to their mouths” (Prov 26:15). the objection to male-oriented language when it accurately reflects the original Psalm 8:4 Hebrew or Greek text? Current NIV: What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man Proverbs 5:21 that you care for him? Current NIV: For a man’s ways are TNIV (2005): What are mere mor- in full view of the Lord. tals that you are mindful of them, human TNIV (2005): For your ways are in beings that you care for them? [identical full view of the Lord [identical to NIVI to NIVI (1996)]. (1996)]. Change in meaning: The singu- Change in meaning: The Hebrew lar “man” meaning “the human race” male-specific noun ‘ish means “a man,” is changed to plural “mere mortals,” as the NIV correctly translated it. The wrongly removing the sense of unity of TNIV incorrectly changes this to “your,” the human race (the Hebrew is singular). and thus restricts the statement to the The Hebrew singular ben which means “you,” which in this context is the son “son” and the singular ‘adam which means being warned by his father in the previous “man” are incorrectly translated with the verse. The text no longer affirms God’s plural “human beings,” removing mas- observation of the ways of every person culine meaning, and thus removing the (represented by the concrete example of title “son of man,” which Jesus often used “a man”). of Himself (The TNIV also incorrectly These last two verses (Ps 34:20; removes “son of man” when this verse is Prov 5:21) also demonstrate another quoted in Heb 2:6.). serious result of systematically changing singulars to plurals in hundreds of cases: Psalm 34:20 The TNIV will ultimately lead to a loss Current NIV: He protects all his of confidence in tens of thousands of bones, not one of them will be broken. plural pronouns in the Bible. A preacher TNIV (2005): He protects all their cannot rightly use the TNIV to make a bones, not one of them will be broken point based on the plurals “they/them/ [identical to NIVI (1996)]. their/those” or the second-person pro- Change in meaning: The third- nouns “you/your/yours” because he can person masculine singular “his” rightly no longer have confidence that those represents the third-person masculine represent accurately the meaning of the singular pronoun suffix in Hebrew, and original. Maybe the original was plural the TNIV incorrectly pluralizes this to (“their”), but then again maybe “their” is “their bones.” This obscures the fulfill- a gender-neutral substitute for a singular 21 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

(“his”). Maybe the original was second substitutes for “he/him/his,” which were person (“you”), but then again maybe translated correctly in the NIV. You can- “you” is a gender-neutral substitute for not trust the pronouns in the TNIV. This a third-person singular pronoun (“he”) is a deﬁciency so great as to render the or a singular noun (“a man”). How can TNIV unsuitable for widespread use in any ordinary English reader know? He the church. cannot. So no weight can be put on those pronouns. “He” in the NIV has become Proverbs 29:3 “we” or “you” or “they” in the TNIV Current NIV: A man who loves hundreds and perhaps even thousands wisdom brings joy to his father, but a of times. companion of prostitutes squanders his How many pronouns are thrown wealth. into doubt? The forms of “we/us/our/ NIVI (1996): Those who love ourselves” occur 4,636 times, the forms wisdom bring joy to their parents, but of “you/your/yours/yourselves” 21,205 companions of prostitutes squander their times, and the forms of “they/them/ wealth. their/themselves/those” 19,372 times, TNIV (2005): A man who loves for a total of 45,213 pronouns. How wisdom brings joy to his father, but a can we know which of these 45,213 are companion of prostitutes squanders his trustworthy, and which are the TNIV’s wealth [a helpful correction, restoring the gender-neutral substitutes for the correct NIV wording]. translation “he/him/his”? The only way is Change in meaning: None. The to check the Hebrew and Greek text in TNIV returns to the original NIV in each case, and who is going to do that? this verse. Can you really study, or memorize, or teach or preach from such a Bible where you cannot trust this many pronouns? Luke 17:3 Current NIV: If your brother sins, Another measure of the extent rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive of the changes comes from seeing that him. the TNIV has 1,826 more instances NIVI (1996): Rebuke a brother of second-person pronouns such as or sister who sins, and if they repent, “you/your/yours/yourself ” than were forgive them. in the NIV. Did 1,826 new examples TNIV (2005): If a brother or sister of second-person verbs and pronouns sins against you, rebuke them; and if they suddenly appear in the original Hebrew repent, forgive them [changed but no and Greek texts? No, most of these are improvement over the NIVI; the words gender-neutral substitutes for the ob- “against you” are added but they are not jectionable words “he/him/his,” which there in the Greek text]. were translated correctly in the NIV. And Change in meaning: The words the TNIV has 2,321 more examples of “or sister” are inserted into the Bible but forms of “they/them/their/those/them- Jesus did not say them, and they have no selves” than the NIV. Did 2,321 new basis in the Greek text. (The Bible can say examples of third-person plural verbs “brother or sister” when it wants to, as in and pronouns suddenly appear in the James 2:15.) The words “against you” are original Hebrew and Greek texts? No, inserted into the Bible, but they have no most of these again are gender-neutral basis in the Greek text. The words “them” 22 FALL 2005

and “they” hinder clear communication John 11:25 because they will be taken as plural by Current NIV: Jesus said to her, “I some people, as singular by others, and am the resurrection and the life. He who as bad grammar by many. A common believes in me will live, even though he reaction will be some uncertainty as to dies. . . .” whether the original Greek was singular NIVI (1996): Jesus said to her, “I or plural. The TNIV is going through am the resurrection and the life. Those linguistic gymnastics simply to avoid who believe in me will live, even though the ostensibly oﬀensive word “him,” but they die. . . .” “him” is the most accurate translation of TNIV (2005): Jesus said to her, “I the masculine singular Greek pronoun am the resurrection and the life. Anyone autos. who believes in me will live, even though I agree, of course, that “If your they die . . . .” [a partial correction chang- brother sins against you” also applies ing plural “those” to singular “anyone,” but to sisters who sin, just as the parable of still using the incorrect plural “they”] the prodigal son also applies to prodigal Change in meaning: I agree with daughters, and just as “You shall not covet the change from “He who believes in me” your neighbor’s wife” (Exod 20:17) also to “Anyone who believes in me,” because applies to not coveting your neighbor’s there is no masculine pronoun in the husband! (And the TNIV did not change Greek text. (“Anyone who” is consistent those passages.) But people have easily with the Colorado Springs Guidelines understood this for centuries: When the for this kind of Greek construction, and Bible uses an example of an individual it retains the singular meaning.)4 But the man or woman to teach a general prin- TNIV still adds an element of confusion ciple, the principle also applies to people because of the plural expression “they die” of the opposite sex. We do not have to (with the plural verb “die”) instead of the add the words “or sister” to understand more accurate NIV rendering, “he dies” this. We should not add to Jesus’ words (correctly rendering the third-person things that have no basis in the Greek singular Greek verb). text. John 14:23 John 6:44 Current NIV: If anyone loves me, Current NIV: No one can come he will obey my teaching. My Father will to me unless the Father who sent me love him, and we will come to him and draws him, and I will raise him up at the make our home with him. last day. NIVI (1996): Those who love me TNIV (2005): No one can come to will obey my teaching. My Father will me unless the Father who sent me draws love them, and we will come to them and them, and I will raise them up at the last make our home with them. day [identical to NIVI (1996)]. TNIV (2005): Anyone who loves Change in meaning: There is a loss me will obey my teaching. My Father of clear emphasis on the Father drawing an will love them, and we will come to them individual person. “Them” seems to be plu- and make our home with them. [a partial ral here, referring to a group. It is an incor- correction, changing plural “those” to rect translation of the third-person singular singular “anyone,” but keeping “them” Greek pronoun autos in both places. instead of “him”] 23 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Change in meaning: Again the restored but the incorrect plural “them- change back to the NIV’s “anyone” is selves” is retained]. helpful. But the “If” that Jesus said Change in meaning: In attempt- (Greek ean) is omitted, and three mas- ing to avoid “himself” (which was the culine singular pronouns (Greek autos) NIV’s correct translation of the mascu- are incorrectly translated with “them,” line singular pronoun heautō), the TNIV removing the amazing emphasis on inserts “them” followed by “themselves,” the Father and Son dwelling with an which many readers will take as plurals. individual person. In the TNIV, maybe The verse will easily be misunderstood “them” refers to the whole group of those to encourage groups of tongue-speakers who obey. How can we know? to go oﬀ together and speak in tongues “to themselves.” But that is not what Acts 20:30 Paul wrote. Current NIV: Even from your own number men will arise and distort James 1:12 the truth in order to draw away disciples Current NIV: Blessed is the man after them. who perseveres under trial, because when TNIV (2005): Even from your own he has stood the test, he will receive the number some will arise and distort the crown of life. . . . truth in order to draw away disciples after TNIV (2005): Blessed are those them [identical to NIVI (1996)]. who persevere under trial, because when Change in meaning: The TNIV they have stood the test, they will receive removes the word “men” used to refer the crown of life . . . [identical to NIVI to the elders of the church at Ephesus. (1996)]. The Greek word is not anthropos, which Change in meaning: TNIV re- can mean “man” or “person,” but aner, moves the example of a single “blessed which means “man” in distinction from man” who perseveres under trial and woman. The Greek expression for “from changes it to a group: “those” and “they.” your own number” is emphatic, referring The focus on God’s blessing on an in- speciﬁcally to the elders and not to the dividual believer is removed. The TNIV Ephesian church. Why not call elders pictures a group under trial and suggests “men”? that reward waits until “they” all have stood the test. “Those” is an incorrect 1 Corinthians 14:28 translation of the singular Greek word Current NIV: If there is no in- aner, which means “man,” not “person,” terpreter, the speaker should keep quiet and certainly not “those.” in the church and speak to himself and God. Revelation 3:20 NIVI (1996): If there is no inter- Current NIV: I stand at the door preter, the speakers should keep quiet and knock. If anyone hears my voice and in the church and speak to themselves opens the door, I will come in and eat and God. with him, and he with me. TNIV (2005): If there is no inter- TNIV (2005): I stand at the door preter, the speaker should keep quiet in and knock. If anyone hears my voice and the church; let them speak to themselves opens the door, I will come in and eat and to God [singular “speaker” is rightly with them, and they with me [identical 24 FALL 2005

to NIVI (1996)]. or “person,” depending on context. But in Change in meaning: The idea of this context it refers to Adam and Christ Christ coming into an individual person’s and the meaning “man” is appropriate. life is lost; Christ no longer eats with What is the objection to calling them “him” but with “them.” Many readers will “men”? understand “them” to refer to the plural group “those whom I love” in the previous NIV Heb 2:17 For this reason he verse, so the TNIV now pictures Christ had to be made like his brothers in ev- coming into a church and eating among ery way, in order that he might become a group of people. a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make Additional Verses atonement for the sins of the people. In addition to these ﬁfteen verses, TNIV Heb 2:17: For this reason the TNIV has other types of unaccept- he had to be made like his brothers and able translations, which I can mention sisters in every way, in order that he brieﬂy: might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that Changing “son” to “child” and “father” to he might make atonement for the sins “parent” when the original meant “son” of the people. and “father” Comment: Did Jesus have to NIV Prov 13:1: A wise son heeds become like his sisters “in every way” his father’s instruction, but a mocker does in order to become a “high priest in not listen to rebuke. service to God”? All the Old Testament TNIV Prov 13:1: A wise child priests were men, and surely the high heeds a parent’s instruction, but a mocker priest was only a man. This text does not does not respond to rebukes. quite proclaim an androgynous Jesus, but it surely leaves open a wide door for Removing “brother” when the original misunderstanding, and almost invites meant “brother” (singular) misunderstanding. Meditate on that NIV Matt 7:3: “Why do you look phrase “in every way” and see if you can at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s trust the TNIV. eye. . . ?” TNIV Matt 7:3: “Why do you Removing whole phrases from the Bible look at the speck of sawdust in someone NIV Matt 7:4: How can you say to else’s eye. . . ?” your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a De-emphasizing the manhood of Christ plank in your own eye? NIV 1 Cor 15:21: For since death TNIV Matt 7:4: How can you say came through a man, the resurrection of ______, ‘Let me take the speck out the dead comes also through a man. of your eye,’ when all the time there is a TNIV 1 Cor 15:21: For since death plank in your own eye? came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead comes also through NIV Matt 15:5: . . . if a man says a human being. to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help Comment: Here the Greek word is you might otherwise have received from anthropos, which can mean either “man” me is a gift devoted to God,’ 25 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

TNIV Matt 15:5: . . . if anyone feature of Greek grammar that does not declares ______that what match what English does. In addition, ____ might have been used ______to there are some difficult Old Testament help their father or mother is ‘devoted poetic verses where the Hebrew pro- to God,’ nouns shift frequently in ways difficult for anyone to understand. But these are Expanding the penalty for adding to the unusual exceptions. words of Scripture To say that “the TNIV is just doing NIV Rev 22:18: I warn everyone what all translations do” is not coming who hears the words of the prophecy of clean with the Christian public regard- this book: If anyone adds anything to ing the extent of the changes. It is like them, God will add to him the plagues saying that a student who misspelled one described in this book. hundred words in a term paper “is just TNIV Rev 22:18: I warn everyone doing what the teacher does” because she who hears the words of the prophecy of misspelled one difficult word in class five this scroll: If any one of you adds any- months ago. It is not the same. thing to them, God will add to you the Another question is, “Why are you plagues described in this scroll. only attacking the TNIV?” First, Vern Comment: The first “you” added Poythress and I systematically critiqued by the TNIV is plural, referring to the several gender-neutral translations in our whole group of hearers. Therefore, the book, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral second “you” is also plural, and if anyone Bible Controversy.5 Second, the NIV is in the group adds to the words of proph- the most widely used translation in the ecy the penalty is now expanded to the English language, so its policies have whole group. great influence. Third, other translations that use much gender-neutral language Objections by TNIV defenders (such as The Message or the New Living The defenders of the TNIV re- Translation) have been “dynamic equiva- spond, saying that all translations make lent” translations that are read more as these kinds of translation decisions. No, commentaries and interpretations of they do not. They do not systematically what the Bible says rather than as “word remove hundreds of male-specific terms for word” or “essentially literal” transla- when there is a male-oriented term in the tions. But the NIV is different, because original, nor do they change hundreds many people use it as their main Bible for of singular verses to plural just to avoid study, teaching, preaching, and memoriz- using the word “he.” ing, and they depend on it much more for Defenders of the TNIV fail to accuracy in the very words. I believe the mention that in the major “essentially TNIV is not sufficiently trustworthy to literal” translations (such as the ESV, be used for these purposes. NASB, HCSB, and NKJV) translating The most frequent reason given for singulars as plurals is rare, done only in the TNIV is that updates in language are unusual cases like collective nouns that needed to reach younger readers today, have a singular form in Greek but require especially those 18–34 years old. But the a plural for the same plural sense in Eng- words that are systematically removed are lish, or neuter plural subjects that take not archaic words. What reader 18–34 a singular verb because of a particular cannot understand the words “father,” 26 FALL 2005

“son,” “brother,” “man,” and “he/him/his”? something that would be a little less of- Yet these male-oriented words have been fensive than what God actually said. removed many hundreds of times where In many hundreds of places, then, they correctly represented the original the new words in the TNIV do not ac- Hebrew or Greek in the current NIV. curately reﬂect the meaning of the words The best term to describe this Bible is not God originally caused to be written, and “gender-accurate” but “gender-neutral.” thus they are not the words of God. They I agree with removing male-orient- are human words that men have substi- ed words when there is no male-oriented tuted for the words of God, and they have meaning in the original Greek or Hebrew no place in the Bible. “You shall not add text. But when there is a male meaning, to the word that I command you, nor take we dare not under-translate and conceal from it” (Deut 4:2). that meaning just because that emphasis is unpopular today. 1 If we believe that “all Scripture is This article originally appeared inWorld, 26 Feb 2005. Used by permission from World magazine, Asheville, God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16), and that NC, www.worldmag.com. “every word of God is ﬂawless” (Prov 2 Wayne Grudem, “Comparing the Two NIVs,” World, 30:5), then we must believe that every 19 Apr 1997. 3 The Wall Street Journal, 28 Dec 2004, sec. A10. word of Scripture as originally written is 4 “The Colorado Springs Guidelines for Translation the very word God intended to be writ- of Gender-Related Language in Scripture” may be ten. To put it another way, our doctrine viewed at www.cbmw.org/resources/nivi/guidelines. php. of the “verbal inspiration” of Scripture is 5 Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The TNIV that the very words of Scripture—not just and the Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Nashville: the general ideas—are “God-breathed” Broadman & Holman, 2004). and are therefore the very words of God. Jesus and the New Testament authors sometimes base arguments on a single word of Old Testament Scripture (see Matt 4:10; John 10:34; Gal 3:10, 16; Heb 3:13; 4:7) and sometimes a single letter of a word (see Matt 22:44). Anyone who does expository preaching knows how often good preaching makes use of the sense of individual words. These words are not ours to tamper with as we wish; they are the words of God. If the TNIV should gain wide acceptance, the precedent will be established for other Bible translations to mute unpopular nuances and details of meaning for the sake of “political correctness.” The loss of many other doctrines unpopular in the culture will soon follow. And at every case Bible readers will never know if what they are reading is really the Word of God or the translators’ ideas of 27 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 28-34 Small Changes in Meaning Can Matter: The Unacceptability of the TNIV

Vern S. Poythress Professor of New Testament Interpretation Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

On February 2, 2005, I received from Psalm 34:20 Zondervan a free copy of the new TNIV, NIV: He protects all his bones, not which includes the TNIV Old Testament. one of them will be broken. (The TNIV New Testament appeared in TNIV: He protects all their bones, February, 2002.) A friendly cover letter not one of them will be broken. asks me to reconsider my earlier criticisms Change in meaning: The change of the TNIV. It alludes to the fact that in to plural obscures the fulfillment of this 2002 I signed a public statement along verse in the crucifixion of Christ, as with more than 100 other evangelical indicated in John 19:36: “These things leaders, judging that “we cannot endorse happened so that the scripture would the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to be fulfilled, ‘Not one of his bones will be commend to the church.” I am certainly broken’” (NIV).2 willing to reconsider, and I am grateful for the invitation to do so. However, when I Proverbs 13:1 examine the new TNIV, I find that little NIV: A wise son heeds his father’s has changed. Consider the following. instruction, TNIV: A wise child heeds a par- Genesis 1:27 ent’s instruction, 1 NIV: So God created man in his Change in meaning: A male own image, meaning component in the underlying TNIV: So God created human be- Hebrew words has been removed by ings in his own image, changing “son” to “child” and “father” to Change in meaning: The change “parent.”3 to a plural obscures the unity of the hu- In his article in this issue of JBMW, man race. Wayne Grudem shows that the TNIV changes meanings again and again as it 28 FALL 2005

tries to eliminate male-oriented words a corporate interpretation, in which the like “father,” “son,” “brother,” “man,” and group purifies itself, or in which each “he/him/his.” Grudem’s article consid- person purifies the others. ers not only the verses above, but many 4 others. Many of the changes in these 1 John 3:9 verses are the same ones that were already NIV: No one who is born of God made in an earlier (1996) gender-neutral will continue to sin, because God’s seed rendering, the New International Ver- remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, sion Inclusive Language Edition (NIVI), because he has been born of God. which sparked the first gender-neutral 5 TNIV: Those who are born of God Bible controversy in 1997. will not continue to sin, because God’s The examples that Grudem pro- seed remains in them; they cannot go on vides are disturbing enough. But what is sinning, because they have been born of more disturbing is that these examples God. can be multiplied. An article in 2002 of- Change in meaning: TNIV has a fered a list of no less than 901 examples of principle that applies to the group cor- “Translation Inaccuracies in the TNIV” 6 porately, but it is not as clear whether it in the New Testament alone. A few of applies to each individual. Perhaps the these have been corrected in the 2005 group as a whole has turned from sins, edition, but most remain in place. Now but a few individuals within it are excep- the TNIV in 2005 has come out in an tions. This is not as strong a statement as edition that includes the Old Testament in the NIV. as well, and the Old Testament translation has its share of problems with meaning.7 Luke 9:26 NIV: If anyone is ashamed of me Consider the following examples and my words, the Son of Man will be of meaning changes that have crept in ashamed of him when he comes in his because the TNIV determined to elimi- 8 glory ... nate generic “he.” 10 TNIV: If anyone of you are ashamed of me and my words, the Son 1 John 4:16 of Man will be ashamed of you when he NIV: Whoever lives in love lives in comes in his glory ... God, and God in him. Change in meaning: TNIV chang- TNIV: Whoever lives in love lives es to the second person, “you,” thereby in God, and God in them. seeming to restrict the principle to the Change in meaning: TNIV opens immediate addressees, “you,” the disciples the door to a corporate interpretation, in to whom Jesus is talking. By contrast, the which God dwells in the group, not in 9 NIV, with the unrestricted word “any- each individual. one,” makes it clear that the principle is completely universal. 1 John 3:3 NIV: Everyone who has this hope 1 John 4:20 in him purifies himself, ... NIV: If anyone says, “I love God,” TNIV: All who have this hope in yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For any- him purify themselves, ... one who does not love his brother, whom Change in meaning: TNIV allows 29 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

he has seen, cannot love God, whom he or offense. Much can be said in reply.15 has not seen. Briefly, (1) the words “son,” “father,” TNIV: If we say we love God yet and “brother” remain in the English hate a brother or sister, we are liars. For language, with the same meanings that if we do not love a fellow believer, whom they always had. The word “man” (for the we have seen, we cannot love God, whom human race) and generic “he” (to refer to we have not seen. a case representative of a general truth) Change in meaning: Third person still occur in major secular media.16 (2) singulars—“anyone” and “he, his”—have The problem with using male-oriented been changed to first person plural, “we.” meanings is not that they will actually be In the process, the principle is no longer misunderstood—the occurrences in the formulated in such universal terms, but secular press dispel that notion. Rather, it only concerning the immediate group, is that some people, having been trained “we.” Moreover, in the second sentence, by feminist propaganda, will perceive of- “brother” has become “fellow believer,” fense or evidence of insensitivity in such omitting the family-like relationship in use. But that is no different in principle the meaning of “brother.” than perceiving offense in calling God We could multiple these examples. “Father,” or in the doctrine of hell or the Each particular case involves a fairly doctrine of substitutionary atonement.17 small change in meaning. In a hasty, We are not free to remove a pattern of superficial reading, one might think at thought from the Bible just because it is first that the two renderings make the offensive. same basic point. But a closer look shows Changes like those illustrated that there are small changes in meaning, above are a regular feature of the TNIV. and that some of these changes make a So if one is using the TNIV as one’s significant difference in interpretation. main Bible, without comparing it with Why make all these changes? The another translation, one never knows obvious answer is that generic “he” has exactly where the changes will show up, been judged “politically incorrect.”11 The and what sort of alternations will take TNIV rewords the verses to eliminate it. place. The problem is severe, not because Likewise, the TNIV regularly removes of any one verse by itself, but because of male meaning in cases that express a the way in which many, many verses are general truth using a male example, as affected. One cannot have confidence as when it changes “son” to “child” and to where one is reading the pure word of “father” to “parent” in Prov 13:1.12 This God, and where one is reading something is gender-neutral translation.13 that is close to being the word of God, Some people have defended the but with some small alterations. That is TNIV’s decision in these cases, and disturbing for anyone who deeply values one can read book-length defenses if the word of God. one wishes, as well as a book-length 14 critique. Many things go into the dis- A Startling Change in cussion. But the two principal defenses are (1) that the English language has Meaning Consider a final example in changed and translations must adjust to Hebrews 2:6: the changes; and (2) that the changes NIV: What is man that you are are necessary to avoid misunderstanding mindful of him, . . . 30 FALL 2005

TNIV: What are mere mortals that belong. And then it opens the door to you are mindful of them, . . . false inferences. Again, the main point sounds The TNIV text has introduced the similar in the two renderings. But there word “mere,” indicating that the person are small differences. The original Greek so designated is not more than mortal. here has the word anthropos, which means But that is not valid. Notice that Heb “human being,” “man.” TNIV has, in- 2:6–8 contains a quotation from Ps stead, the expression “mere mortals.” The 8:4–6. (At this point we will quote from idea of mortality is not in the original. It the English Standard Version [ESV], in has just been imported from nowhere.18 order to show the sequence of thought Some people will not worry about better.) TNIV’s use of “mere mortals” here. “What is the difference?” they may say. It has been testified some- “Mere mortals” refers to the same thing as where, “What is man, that did the earlier translation “man;” namely, you are mindful of him, or it refers to the human race. Yes, the the son of man, that you care reference may be the same, or nearly the for him? You made him for same.19 But the meaning is not the same. a little while lower than the Putting in the expression “mere mortals” angels; you have crowned him confuses meaning with reference. with glory and honor, putting Consider a parallel example. The everything in subjection un- expressions “God,” “Father,” “Almighty,” der his feet” (Heb 2:6-8a). “Creator,” and “Alpha and Omega” refer to the same God. The reference is the Hebrews then goes on to draw out same. Is the meaning the same? If it is, some implications: then we can freely substitute “God” for “the Father” or for “God the Father,” thus Now in putting everything eliminating all the politically incorrect in subjection to him, he left occurrences of the word “Father” with nothing outside his control. reference to God.20 At present, we do not yet see In fact, the expressions referring to everything in subjection to God all have different meanings. Same- him. But we see him who for ness in reference is not enough for a a little while was made lower translation to preserve meaning. Similarly, than the angels, namely Jesus, “man” and “mere mortals” have different crowned with glory and hon- meanings, because the latter expression or because of the suffering of has added the idea of mortality.21 death, so that by the grace of The distinction between reference God he might taste death for and meaning has been well known to se- everyone (Heb 2:8b-9). mantic theory for decades.22 Even before it was formally defined, it was intuitively The expression “crowned with glory used by translators throughout the ages. and honor” in v. 9 applies to Jesus. It Despite this, the TNIV translates refer- echoes the specific wording of the earlier ence but not meaning. Once a translation quotation in v. 7. Hebrews is obviously becomes sloppy with meaning in this applying the wording of the Psalm to way, it permits meanings that do not Jesus. The Psalm finds its fulfillment 31 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

in him. Thus v. 6, along with the other in its 2005 edition. Why was there no verses quoted from the Psalm, applies change in this verse in the new edition? to Christ. In February, 2002, thirty-seven scholars But that creates a theological prob- signed a public statement critical of the lem with the expression “mere mortals,” TNIV New Testament, and later more which the TNIV has inserted back in v. than one hundred evangelical leaders 6. Verse 6, we have seen, applies to Christ. signed a similar public statement.23 In So was Christ a “mere mortal,” as the 2002 a leading critical article by Wayne TNIV wording suggests? With respect Grudem, “A Brief Summary of Concerns to his human nature, Jesus was indeed About the TNIV,” cited Heb 2:6, includ- mortal, and suffered death. But he was ing the expression “mere mortals,” as one not a “mere mortal.” “Mere mortal” implies of a half-dozen principal examples of the that he was not divine. Whatever else problems.24 Yet in 2005 the TNIV has one says, one ought not to use this kind not changed the wording. An obvious of language. And it is not there in the inaccuracy in meaning, to which public original Greek. The TNIV has pushed it attention was drawn, remains in place. in against the principles of sound lexi- Why? I do not know why. But a case like cography and meaning representation. this magnifies the problems of trusting By doing so, it has (without realizing it) the TNIV. opened the door to an attack on the deity of Christ. Spiritual Dangers in Cultural So is this difference in translation a small difference? Is it unimportant? No, Pressure We do not know what was going not now. The difference does not look on in the minds of the translators. But that big, at least at first. But in the end it we do have the product, and the product is a big difference. It affects the deity of regularly suppresses male meanings. It Christ! How can such a small difference regularly gives up accuracy in meaning have such a big effect? Because a differ- when required in order to avoid generic ence in meaning affects what kind of “he” and “man” (for the human race) and inferences we draw from it. A fallible hu- other patterns of thought that the politi- man translation cannot always anticipate cally correct elite has pronounced unac- this kind of effect. Hence, it is not only 25 ceptable. At such points, the product is wiser to stick as close to the meaning of in effect bowing down to the canons of the original as one can; it is important. It political correctness rather than to God, can become exceedingly important when who speaks authoritatively in his word. we start drawing inferences—which we Our culture is also a culture of must do if we are going to take the Bible pragmatism. Whatever works justifies seriously and apply it to our lives. We itself. So if a gender-neutral Bible works need a Bible that we can trust. Is the in getting some people to read the Bible, TNIV that Bible? I do not think so. we no longer worry. I am saying that we The failure of the TNIV in Heb 2:6 should worry. Pragmatism has become a is all the more serious because there is a false god if it tells us to trim meanings history behind it. In February, 2002, the off of the word of God. TNIV New Testament was issued. That New Testament portion had, in Heb 2:6, exactly the same wording as it still has 32 FALL 2005

problems. The Larger Conflict 9 It is claimed by some that the word “they” here Larger issues are at stake. Main- has a singular reference, because of the preceding stream prestige culture finds certain singular word “whoever.” But the actual situation is patterns of thought politically incorrect. more complicated. See Poythress, “Avoiding Generic ‘He,’” 25–26; and Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, It is at war with the word of God. And 92–95. so the integrity of the word of God is at 10 Since in English the subject “anyone” is grammatical- stake. The TNIV fails at crucial points to ly singular, the verb should also be singular: “If anyone of you is ashamed . . .” But the TNIV has “are.” maintain that integrity. The rejection of 11 See the extensive discussion of various aspects of the TNIV is important for the spiritual generic “he” in Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, health of the people of God. I repeat the 223–344; and Vern S. Poythress, “Gender and Generic Pronouns in English Bible Translation,” in Language warning that Wayne Grudem and I is- and Life: Essays in Memory of Kenneth L. Pike, ed. Mary sued at the end of our book in 2000: Ruth Wise, Thomas N. Headland, Ruth M. Brend (Dallas, TX: SIL International and The University of Texas at Arlington, 2003), 371–80. The issue is therefore tied in 12 See Vern S. Poythress, “Gender in Bible Translation: with the doctrine of Scripture Exploring a Connection with Male Representatives,” and its authority. Do we fol- Westminster Theological Journal 60, no. 2 (1998): 225–53. low the Bible alone, submit- 13 Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 117–18. ting to all its teachings and 14 With some reservations, Carson and Strauss defend nuances? Or do we trim it in gender-neutral translations in D. A. Carson, The order to fit in more comfort- Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); and Mark L. Strauss, Distort- ably with modern thought ing Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation & 26 patterns? Gender Accuracy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, criticizes the policy 1 The New International Version, 1978, revised in of removing male meanings. 15 1984. Ibid., esp. 275–344. 2 16 Note the following examples: For further discussion, see the article by Wayne Grudem (“Changing God’s Words”) in this issue of “HOW MAN EVOLVED: Amazing new dis- JBMW. Extensive discussion of the broader issues is found in Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, coveries reveal the secrets of our past” (Time, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy front cover, Aug. 23, 1999). (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2004), esp. 236–38 for Ps 34:20. “Years ago, man thought everything revolved 3 See the fuller discussion in Vern S. Poythress, “TNIV’s around the earth” (cartoon caption in USA Altered Meanings: An Evaluation of the TNIV,” Today, Jan. 18, 2000, A14). n.p. [cited 21 Sep 2005]. Online: http://www.cbmw. org/article.php?id=108; and Poythress and Grudem, “Cold, snow good for man’s soul” (by Jeremy The TNIV, 217–20, 367–75. Manier and Sue Ellen Christian, Chicago Tri- 4 Gen 1:26; 5:2; Ps 1:1; 8:4; Prov 5:21; Matt 7:3, 4; 15:5; bune, January 10, 1999, 1). Luke 17:3; John 6:44; 11:25; 14:23; Acts 20:30; 1 Cor 14:28; 15:21; Heb 2:17; Jas 1:12; Rev 3:20; 22:18. 5 See Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 121–48. For uses of generic “he,” consider the following: 6 “Translation Inaccuracies in the TNIV: A Catego- rized List of 901 Examples,” Journal for Biblical Man- “Nobody comes off a trans-Atlantic flight hood and Womanhood 7, no. 2 (2002): 9–14; reprinted looking better than when he got on it” (Chicago in Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 73–84. Tribune, August 22, 1999, Sec. 8, p. 3). 7 See, for example, Poythress, “TNIV’s Altered Mean- ings.” “Little is more incendiary than a member of 8 I discussed these at greater length in Vern S. Poythress, Congress who feels he has been misled—unless “Avoiding Generic ‘He’ in the TNIV,” Journal for it’s a law enforcement agency that fans con- Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7, no. 2 (2002): 21–30; reprinted in Poythress and Grudem, The spiracy theories through incompetence” (USA TNIV, 85–100. In some cases the TNIV 2005 has Today, Aug. 31, 1999, A14). made changes, but they have not eliminated the 33 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

An extensive list of such uses could be compiled (see sick.” But (1) it is doubtful how far this carries over Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 351–54; 315–22. to the cognate noun, ‘noš, which means “man,” “man- Lists were initially published in 2000 in Vern S. kind.” (2) “Weak” and “mortal” are two quite distinct Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem, The Gender-Neutral meanings. (3) The quotation in Heb 2:6 is in Greek, Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God’s not Hebrew; it is a fallacy to suppose that all the Words [Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2000], meaning associations of a Hebrew word carry over 239–42, 203–10). to whatever Greek word is used in a translation. The Some of the defenders of the TNIV and tenuousness of these connections indicates how flimsy other gender-neutral Bible translations assert or is the case that can be produced for the translation assume that these kinds of usage “must” be avoided. “mere mortals.” By similar sloppy reasoning one could But they cannot give a satisfactory reason. People justify almost any translation that has the loosest who know English (in distinction from people who connection with the meaning of the original. may be still learning the language at an early stage) Finally, someone might point to an English do not misunderstand. The one remaining reason is dictionary that gives “a human being” as the definition that such usages are labeled politically incorrect in of mortal when used as a noun (for example, Webster’s elitist circles. See Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). But it takes only a 223–357; and Paul Mankowski, “The Necessary Fail- moment’s reflection to see that this is a case where the ure of Inclusive-Language Translations: A Linguistic dictionary has provided the reference and left to the Elucidation,” The Thomist 62 (1998): 445–68. reader the obvious inference that the word “mortal” 17 Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 278–87. still retains its meaning associations with the idea of 18 On the meaning of the Greek word, see Henry mortality. Similarly a dictionary may provide “God” George Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart as one definition of “Father” (Webster’s Ninth New Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, with supplement Collegiate Dictionary, meaning 1b under “father”). 1968 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), under Such a definition supplies the reference but not the anthropos, esp. meaning 1; and Frederick William obvious meaning. Danker, ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New 19 As we shall see, the reference of “mere mortals” must Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3d logically leave out Jesus Christ, who with respect ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), to his human nature was mortal, but is not merely 81, under anthropos. The Danker lexicon has Heb mortal. 2:6 listed under meaning 1, “human being,” together 20 On the slippery slope that might lead to eliminating with those passages that refer to Christ (subsection “Father” as a designation for God, see Poythress and 1d), because the subsequent verses leading to Heb 2:9 Grudem, The TNIV, 298–99. clearly apply the quotation to Christ. 21 The inadequacy of the word “mortal” for translating For meaning 2 the Danker lexicon also has common words for human beings is discussed in “a member of the human race, w.[ith] focus on limi- Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 362–63. tations and weakness, a human being.” It then notes 22 See, for example, John Lyons, Semantics (2 vols.; that one such weakness is being “subject to death Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), Hb 9:27; Rv 8:11; Ro 5:12.” Conceivably someone 1:177–205. might use this data as an excuse for importing the 23 “Scholars Statement of Concern About the TNIV,” meaning “mortal” into Heb 2:6. But one should note Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7, no. 2 several problems with such reasoning: (1) The lexicon (2002): 91; and “Over 100 Christian Leaders Claim indicates the sense of a Greek word using boldface that the TNIV Bible is Not Trustworthy,” Journal of and italics; but the wording concerning death is not Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7, no. 2 (2002): 92– in boldface or italics, indicating that it is part of the 95; see Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 101–9. context in various verses, not the actual meaning of the 24 Wayne A. Grudem, “A Brief Summary of Concerns word; (2) all three verses mentioned in the lexicon as About the TNIV,” Journal of Biblical Manhood and being associated with death explicitly mention death; Womanhood 7, no. 2 (2002): 6–8; Heb 2:6 is mentioned (3) nowhere in Heb 2:6 is there any hint about death on p. 7. The article is reprinted in Poythress and (there is mention of Jesus’ death in Heb 2:9, but that Grudem, The TNIV, 1–5. Grudem lists some further is later, after the reader has already digested 2:6); (4) verses and problems, beyond the initial sample of there is no mention of death in Psalm 8, from which six verses, but does not devote extended space to the Hebrews quotes; and (5) specialists in meaning are later examples. well acquainted with the difference between the actual 25 It is worth reiterating that generic “he” and “man” sense of a word and the large set of encyclopedic as- (for the race) both occur regularly in the secular press sociations that may be called into play. (see note 16). One cannot rightly excuse the TNIV by Someone might claim that the idea of mor- saying that otherwise people would not understand. tality is appropriate because Heb 2:6 is a quotation Rather, they would be offended. For a full discussion from Ps 8:4 (8:5 in Hebrew numbering), which has of these excuses, see Poythress and Grudem, The the Hebrew word ‘noš, associated with weakness. But TNIV, 275–357. now notice how desperate the argument has become. 26 Poythress and Grudem, Gender-Neutral Bible Con- The Hebrew verbal root ‘nš does mean “to be weak, troversy, 298; reprinted in Poythress and Grudem, The TNIV, 410. 34 FALL 2005 JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 35-50 (Mis)Translating Psalm 1

Robert L. Cole Assistant Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina

The recent Today’s New Interna- walk….But his delight…he meditates…. tional Version (TNIV) translates the He is like a tree….”3 opening words of Psalm 1 as follows: “Blessed are those….,” rendering the singular articular masculine noun vyah History of Interpretation 1 Final judgment on the plural gen- (lit., “the man”) as a genderless plural. eralizing translation of the TNIV must Since this particular noun is the subject be based on the content and context of and grammatical antecedent for the verbs the psalm, but it is instructive as well and pronouns that follow through v. 3, to survey the history of interpretation. the plural translation has been continued Translators since antiquity have consis- throughout. So the three masculine sin- tently rendered this form (vyah) by the gular perfect verbs which follow in verse 4 masculine singular. Nonetheless, there one (bvæy:…dmæ[;…Jlæh;) have been plural- has been a long and deeply entrenched ized (“who do not walk…stand…sit”). history of interpretation that understands The third masculine singular pronominal it to refer not to any single and identifi- suffix and third masculine singular verb of able individual but rather to all people in verse two (.…hghy…/xpj…) are also made general. For example, according to the to conform to this pattern (“but who 2 fourth century Antiochene interpreter delight…and meditate….” ), as is the Diodorus the psalm is “instructing not translation of the third masculine singu- hy:h;w“ any particular person but people in gen- lar wәqatal of verse three ( ) by “They 5 eral.” Clifford, in a recent commentary, are.” The same is true for the translation surveys patristic commentators and of the third masculine singular imperfect considers the “ethical view” of Psalm 1 hc[y of verse three. Such a translation is to be the majority opinion of the time a change from the previous NIV which as opposed to the “christological inter- reads: “Blessed is the man who does not 6 pretation.” 35 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Since antiquity commentators have Hakham the first two verses contrast also seen in the man of Psalm 1 a specific the deeds of the righteous (he uses the individual. Midrash Tehillim cites vari- plural µyqydxh) and the wicked.20 Alonso ous rabbinic opinions that identify him Schökel in the same vein labels it a wis- as David, Adam, Noah, Abraham, the dom psalm with, “universal purview, since tribe of Levi, or individual scholars who it has to do with ’îš, meaning anyone.”21 dedicated themselves completely to the Wilson’s recent commentary expresses law,7 such as those rabbis whose names similar sentiments concluding that the are attached to collections of Mishnah.8 psalm is, “an exhortation—through posi- Ancient Christian commentators such as tive and negative examples—to adopt the Justin Martyr,9 Augustine,10 and others11 fruitful and satisfying life.”22 The TNIV read the first psalm christologically. In translators have undoubtedly seized upon the New Testament Ps 1:5 is apparently this widely held interpretation of Psalm 1 interpreted as eschatological judgment as a basis for their genderless and plural (Matt 13:49–50),12 over which the Son rendition of vyah, as has the NRSV.23 The of Man presides according to Matt ESV renders in the traditional, “Blessed 25:30–46. is the man…his…he…,” but a footnote For Calvin the message of Psalm informs readers that the “singular He- 1 was “that they are blessed who apply brew word for man (ish) is used here to their hearts to the pursuit of heavenly portray a representative example of a wisdom,” presumably a generalizing view godly person.”24 of it,13 while Luther read it christologi- In spite of a long entrenched his- cally.14 Alexander regarded the psalm to tory of the generalizing view, descriptions “admit of an easy application to all times of unmitigated piety and success in Psalm and places where the word of God is 1 have led commentators to qualify their known.”15 For Delitzsch the first psalm view. Kraus identifies the psalm as “di- represented a hymn, “adapted to form dactic poetry,” but that “everything stated the proœmium of the Psalter from its in Psalm 1 about the qydx basically en- ethical…character,” implying of course tails a character that transcends any one a generalizing view.16 Gunkel saw in individual…definitely bears the features Psalm 1 wisdom poetry of the type seen of the super individual, the paradigmatic in neighboring ancient cultures.17 His person.”25 For Weiser, the first psalm form–critical approach, practiced by promises happiness “to the God-fearing many commentators up to the present people…gives clear guidance regarding era, has only solidified further the gen- the way in which they shall conduct their eralizing interpretation of vyah in the lives,” but warns that the strong optimis- first psalm. tic faith in this psalm can be “dangerous Further examples of modern com- if it is distorted into a calculating belief mentaries exhibiting the generalizing in recompense…or if the idea of success view of Psalm 1 include Kirkpatrick, for becomes the sole motive of action.” 26 whom it “expresses a general truth, and Leupold qualifies the language of does not appear to refer to any particular verse three so that it “is meant absolutely person or occasion,”18 and Craigie, who only in so far as the devotion to the Word classified it among the “wisdom psalms,” is absolute…generally speaking, it will and so predictably applies the first three be obvious in such a life that God is verses to the righteous in general.19 For crowning the man’s endeavors with suc- 36 FALL 2005

cess.”27 Alexander notes that even the 2.33 Recognition of the close relationship best of men fall short of what this psalm between the first two psalms is present describes and so is not taken from real in the Church Fathers,34 Jerome,35 and life.28 some later Hebrew manuscripts.36 The Briggs interprets the idealistic case of Acts 13:33, which in a small language from another perspective. Be- number of manuscripts reads, “in the cause he views the psalm as originating first psalm” before quoting Psalm 2, is in a time of “intense scribal devotion to further evidence that in antiquity their the Law,” it is a description of the ideal close relationship was recognized.37 The man such a community would envisage; evidence for the original discreteness of “not…all men, or all Jews…or all pious each of Psalms 1 and 2 is convincing (as men…but…one devoting his whole the abbreviated acrostic within Psalm 1 time…to the study of the Law…such as itself demonstrates), but numerous overt Ezra.”29 Similarly, the recent Jewish Study connections (see below) undoubtedly Bible notes how this psalm uses “biblical explain persistent ancient attempts at imagery…to develop the picture of the combination. ideal righteous individual.”30 Indeed In more recent times lexical links that imagery is taken from portrayals of between the two have been duly noted, two individuals, Joseph and Joshua (Gen but often without fully appreciating the 39:3, 23; Josh 1:8). Joshua was promised resulting implications. Delitzsch lists success conditionally ( Josh 1:7, 8), and parallels but can only conclude that was victorious in all military campaigns “Perhaps Ps. ii. is only attached to Ps. i. except Ai and with the Gibeonites ( Josh on account of those coincidences….”38 7, 9). There are, however, no exceptions Alexander would go further stating that nor conditions stated in the success at- the two are “parts of one harmonious tributed to the man of Psalm 1, undoubt- composition, or at least kindred and edly a purposefully induced difference contemporaneous products of a single between the two texts. mind…contrast, which the first exhibits, of the righteous and the wicked, is repro- The Relationship between duced, in the second, as a war against the Lord and his Anointed.”39 In spite of Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 such statements he fails to uncover their The most ancient interpretation of ultimate implications for the understand- Psalm 1 is its context within the Psalter 31 ing of both psalms. itself, a perspective increasingly rec- Brownlee listed four vocabulary ognized in recent years. According to links between Psalms 1 and 2 as well as Braulik, the “principal trend in current 40 thematic parallels. While he argues for research on the Psalm” is a reading of the use of the two in a coronation ritual, “any given individual psalm in the context he mentions the possibility of the two of the entire book…[E]xegesis of the 41 being joined as “a Messianic treatise.” Psalms thus developed into exegesis of 32 Because Brownlee is taking seriously the the Psalter.” However, such a reading implications of juxtaposition and verbal of the Psalter is by no means innovative ties, he is driven logically to a correlation and was clearly practiced in antiquity. between the king of Psalm 2 and the just The Talmud cites arguments, first for man of Psalm 1. So he states, “the just the unity of Psalms 1 and 2, and then man recites Yahweh’s Law and the king for reading Psalm 3 in light of Psalm 37 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

recounts Yahweh’s decree (1, 2; 2, 7),” and, being “led by his anointed king, and “prosperity and success of the godly man whose happy lot is proclaimed in 1:1 and of Ps 1 has its counterpart in the victory 2:12.”46 Although he fails to note the of the Lord’s ‘son’ over the nations in Ps uniqueness of the individual in 1:1–3, 2.”42 he is driven logically to recognize the Aufffret, in a more detailed study continued discussion in the second psalm compares the sitting of the wicked in of topics raised in the first. Psalm 1 with the sitting of Yahweh in Sheppard also takes seriously the Psalm 2, the murmuring of the nations pairing of the first two psalms, and con- in Psalm 2 and the murmuring of the cludes that the “psalms constructively righteous in Psalm 1, the impotence of interpret each other by means of several the stubble in Psalm 1 and the impotent parallel features.”47 Those he lists include resistance of the wicked in Psalm 2, the the following: the easy transition from righteous man who meditates on the law the wicked at the end of Psalm 1 who daily with the result that he gives his fruit are spelled out as the nations and their in Psalm 1 and the giving of the nations rulers beginning in Psalm 2; the contrast to the son on a chosen day in Psalm 2, between meditation of the righteous in etc.43 His conclusions are as follows: Psalm 1 and that of the nations and rulers in Psalm 2; the wise man’s avoidance The relationship of the two of session with scoffers in Psalm 1 as psalms thus appears to be opposed to the heavenly session where closer than simple recurrenc- the Lord has the world leaders in deri- es of vocabulary or allusions sion; and finally, the similar terminology to themes would permit one of “way” and “perish” concluding both to imagine. The righteous psalms.48 Like Auffret and Brownlee, and the anointed one expe- Sheppard also notes a “close relationship rience very similar trials and between Ps. 1 and Ps. 2,” which means opposition, but the covenant that the “nations and rulers in Ps. 2 are of God is promised to them, identified with those who walk in the way and therewith success and of the sinners…in Ps. 1,” and, “David is prosperity, as contrasted with represented in Ps. 2 both as the author of their adversaries who, if they the Psalms and also as one who qualifies persist in their opposition, under the injunction of Ps. 1 to interpret can only run headlong to the Torah….”49 So the king of Psalm 2 destruction.44 identified as David, is also the man of Psalm 1. Brennan has observed that Psalms Hakham, who takes note of the were juxtaposed “in such a way that vari- linkages generally between psalms across ous key words and expressions in one pick the book, considers the first two as being up and develop a theme already enunci- joined together into one unit.50 He lists ated in another…provid[ing] an inner the more obvious verbal parallels between coherence for an otherwise apparently the two and suggests a similar opposition disorganized collection.”45 After listing between the wicked and the righteous of verbal parallels between Psalms 1 and 2 Psalm 1, and the wicked nations opposite he considers that the first presents the the Lord and his messiah of Psalm 2.51 just versus the wicked, with the former Wilson’s well-known work on the 38 FALL 2005

editing of the Psalter analyzed the role In my opinion, the only valid of superscriptions and includes surveys and cautious hypothesis with and unifying summaries of the content which to begin is that the of the five books.52 In regards to Psalms present arrangement is the 1 and 2 he follows Willis in rejecting any result of purposeful editorial integrated reading, regarding the first activity, and that its purpose psalm as the introduction. The latter can be discerned by careful “emphasizes individual meditation rather and exhaustive analysis of than communal recitation,” while Psalm the linguistic and thematic 2 introduces the idea of the Davidic relationships between indi- covenant and functions with Psalm 41 to vidual psalms and groups of bind Book 1 “as an independent unit.”53 psalms.61 Nonetheless, as Barbiero has shown, Psalm 1 also functions in its vocabulary Indeed, when Psalms 1 and 2 are to bind Book 1 together.54 Not only does subjected to a careful and exhaustive a twofold occurrence of yrva open and analysis of linguistic and thematic rela- close Book 1 (1:1, 2:12 and 40:5, 41:2), tionships, the logic and sense of their edi- but also the sequence /tr/tbW /xpj in 1:2 torial combination becomes apparent. resonates closely with òtr/tw ytxpj in When form–critical categories 40:9.55 Furthermore, the prediction that are applied to the first two psalms the many will see and “fear” of 40:4c (Waryyw) interpretive results are predictable, and indicates the warning of 2:11 (haryb hwhy inevitably at odds with the purposes of ta Wdb[) would eventually be heeded. the Psalter’s compilation and composi- Wilson argues for the discrete tion. While there are often concentra- nature of books in the Psalter based on tions of what form critics would charac- similarities between beginning and end terize as identical Gattungen, there are such as the royal Psalms 2, 41, 72 and sequences quite glaringly inconsistent 89,56 or, “the interweaving of theme and with these categories. At its very outset verbal correspondences” within Psalms the Psalter reveals a so-called wisdom 90–106,57 inclusio between 90 and 102, or torah psalm (Psalm 1), royal psalm answers in 103 to 90,58 and two Da- (Psalm 2), and individual lament (Psalm vidic groups of psalms at the beginning 3), respectively.62 Only by setting aside (108–110) and end (138–145) of Book form-critical categories can one begin to 5.59 In the case of Psalms 103–104 he understand the logic of such a sequence argues that they are connected by the on the part of the book’s compiler, who inclusio of hwhy ta ypvn ykrb at either end.60 was unconstrained by modern genre clas- However, this is the same evidence (in- sifications.63 Gunkel concluded that for clusio, interweaving of themes and verbal the most part there was no logical prin- correspondence, answers in subsequent ciple to the canonical sequence and set psalms to previous) found in Psalms 1–2. about the task of re-ordering it.64 In good In fact, the evidence for a discrete reading form-critical tradition, Wilson protests of the first two psalms is as abundant, if that the “two pss are of very different not more so, than that found in the larger ‘types’”65, i.e., “wisdom” or “torah,” and book sections of the Psalter. “royal,” but in the mind of the Psalter’s Wilson describes the correct proce- shaper they were in fact quite suited to dure for study of the Psalter as follows: each other. 39 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

McCann expresses the need to take 1 with the messiah of Psalm 2.76 Manatti the final shape of the book of Psalms likewise reads Psalms 1 and 2 as an in- seriously and states regarding the first tegrated prelude to the Psalter, equating two psalms that they “are meant to be the rebellious ways of 1:6 and 2:12, and read together.”66 As a result he identi- the success of the just one in Psalm 1 fies the nations and rulers of Psalm 2 as with the judgment of the king messiah the wicked of Psalm 1.67 Nonetheless, in Psalm 2.77 because of his prior commitment to form Barbiero detects eschatology in criticism the first psalm is predictably terminology of the first two psalms categorized as “a beatitude, a form usually themselves, such as “chaff ”78 (1:4, cf. Mal associated with wisdom literature”and so 3:1979), and “judgment” (fpvm) of 1:5.80As generalized as offering a choice to all.68 for Psalm 2, he cites “wrath” (πa) in Ps In a discussion of the Psalter’s 2:5, 12, and “then” (za) of Ps 2:5 (cf. Mic beginning, Miller recognized that the 3:4; Zeph 3:9, 11), as indicators of final “connections between the two are unde- judgment.81 This endtime perspective niable…Psalms 1 and 2 were to be read is also increasingly recognized for the together as an entrée into the Psalter… entire book. Childs observed that “the they stand closely together as a single, final form of the Psalter is highly escha- if complex, way into the psalms that tological in nature.”82 Rendtorff observes follow.”69 He suggests a link between the collection as a whole and notes the Psalms 1 and 2 furnished by Deut 17:18, movement toward “praise of God in the in which the king is required to have a hallelu yah psalms,” and “the emphatic copy of the law to read all the days of his position of the royal psalms.”83 For him, life.70 Thus the man of Psalm 1 is the “There can be no doubt that at this stage ideal king and ruler. However, Miller they were understood in messianic terms: also contends without substantiation that the praise of God is not only directed to he is a representative figure for anyone in the past and the present, but also includes opposition to the wicked.71 the messianic future.”84 Hossfeld and Continental scholars such as Hoss- Zenger likewise detect an eschatological feld and Zenger consider Psalms 1 and perspective in Psalm 2, and across the 2 as a “Proömium” for the entire Psal- entire book.85 Mays states regarding the ter and see the revolt in Ps 2:1–3 as a Psalter and its beginning, “[B]y the time paradigm for the activities of the wicked the Psalter was being completed, the described in Ps 1:1, 6.72 In a study fo- psalms dealing with the kingship of the cussed on Book I, Barbiero spells out in Lord were understood eschatologically…. more detail, evidence for the structural Psalm 2, reread as a vision of the goal of unity of Psalms 1 and 2 and its implica- history, puts the torah piety of Psalm 1 tions.73 He identifies the µy[vr of Psalm in an eschatological context.”86 Mitchell 1 with the µyklm of Psalm 2, and then notes that Psalms 1 and 2 together “an- observes how both the single righteous nounce that the ensuing collection is a one (Psalm 1) and the Messiah (Psalm handbook for the eschatological wars of 2) are confronted with a larger crowd.74 the Lord, describing the coming events He cites both Millard, who compares and the Yhwh-allegiance required of the two righteous individuals in Psalm those who would triumph.”87 1 and 2 who resist God’s enemies,75 and A most recent study by Grant Wénin who identifies the man of Psalm addressing the issue of “royal psalms” 40 FALL 2005

suggests that the Psalter’s editor paired While some of the foregoing may them with “torah psalms,” in order to appear at first glance to be incidental, not highlight the description of the ideal king attaining the level of purposeful editorial in Deut 17:14–20.88 Regarding Psalms design, closer inspection can often reveal 1 and 2 he notes that they “are linked by an underlying purpose. Such is the case several significant lexical and thematic for the common preposition l[ in 1:3 and repetitions, which associate the figure 2:6, or the noun lk in 1:3 and 2:12. The of the king in Ps 2 with the torah–lover latter does not appear initially to rise to of Ps 1.”89 Later he states that “Ps 2 the level of compositional intentionality. represents an eschatological hope for the Nonetheless, closer inspection reveals a restoration of Yahweh’s king … he is to deliberate linking and contribution to the be an exemplar of the piety represented overall message: by Ps 1, as is indicated by the close lexical links between the two psalms.”90 Grant rva lkow – 1:3e defends form-critical categories, but ad- Alk yrva – 2:12d mits they were not the basis of the book’s organization.91 While one instance of the sequence rva in 1:3 is the common relating particle, Analysis of the Varied Links being quite different from the interjec- tion yrva in 2:12d, both forms appear between Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 in 1:1a – rva (vyah) yrva. Undoubtedly The foregoing review demonstrates rva in 1:3e (“and all whatsoever [he does current interest in the relationship of prospers]”) refers back to 1:1 (“Oh the Psalms 1 and 2. Analysis of that relation- blessings of the man who…”), defining ship is in fact simply a serious reckoning “blessings” as success in his every (lk) with the final editor’s understanding 94 venture. The effect produced by the of these poems. The numerous mutu- appearance of identical forms in 2:12 is ally supporting lexical, phonological, to assure participation in that success to and thematic ties point to a deliberate 95 all (lk) those who trust in him. Both integration and cannot be ignored, nor 1:1 and 2:12 are quite explicitly linked by explained as superficial aesthetic literary yrva, while lk appears in both 2:12 and ties void of interpretive significance. A 1:3, implying that the blessings of vyah list of lexical parallels is offered here: in 1:1 are defined Psalm 1 Psalm 2 as unrestricted suc- vyah yrva – 1:1a92 /b ys/j lk yrva – 2:12d cess in 1:3, and bvy…bv/mbW – 1:1d bv/y – 2:4a participation in hghy – 1:2b Wghy – 2:1b those blessings are µm/y – 1:2b µ/yh – 2:7c offered to those (≈mø)k…(≈[)k – 1:3a, 4b (ylk)k – 2:9b without restriction l[ – 1:3b l[ – 2:693 who trust in 2:12. ˜ty – 1:3c hntaw – 2:8a As for the l[ /T[b – 1:3c ht[w – 2:10a preposition , lkw – 1:3e lk – 2:12d there are exam- fpvmb – 1:5a ≈raAyfpvo – 2:10b ples in 1:3, 5; 2:2 96 Jrdw…Jrd…JrdbW – 1:1c, 6a, 6b Jrd – 2:12b (twice), 6. How- dbato…Jrdw – 1:6b Jrd Wdbatow – 2:12b ever, the two in- 41 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

ht[w stances in 1:3 and 2:6 are closely related, 2:10 ( ) introduces a warning to rulers, forming a lexical parallel to the season of referring to the establishment of a subject /t[b upon or over a given location.97 In the fruit-bearing in 1:3 ( ). So matching first case the governing verbal predicate terminology between 1:2–3 and 2:7–10 (lWtv) indicates the transplantation of a indicates the tree metaphor of the first tree over waters, and in the second the psalm is explained in the second as the establishment (ytksn) of a king upon a son of God receiving his worldwide mountain. In addition, the phonological inheritance. environment provides further evidence The apparently subdued pastoral of deliberate linking: image of a tree in 1:3 does not appear on the surface to correspond with the vio- yglp l[ – 1:3 lent and destructive judgment of 2:8–12. l[ yklm – 2:6 However, Ps 1:3 has already suggested the connection. The latter describes The consonantal sequences in the two the unmitigated success of this man nouns are: a bilabial stop (mêm and peh), in language used also for Joshua ( Josh the consonant lāmed, a palatal–velar stop 1:8), whose triumphs were devastatingly (gîmel and kap), and a long i class vowel militant. The use of yrva at the beginning represented by yōd (.sērê yōd and .hîreq yōd). Here then are features phonological, and end of Psalms 1 and 2 effectively envelopes the two into an interpretive semantic and lexical converging in the 100 integration of the two psalms. unity. However, the first is followed The preceding parallels imply immediately by the masculine singular articular noun vyah and the second by the the blessed man of Psalm 1 is a king, yse/j lk as in Psalm 2. Indeed, his devotion to noun phrase (“all those trusting”). the torah in v. 2 is comparable to that There is general agreement that this final prescribed for the ideal king of Deut clause of 2:12 is all-encompassing, but 17:18–20.98 Royal ideology is thus pres- according to the TNIV translators the ent in both the first and second psalm, singular of 1:1 is also universal in scope. However, they ignore the fact that the a fact not escaping the notice of the rva vya Psalter’s final redactor responsible for common generalizing expression lk 101 their juxtaposition. was available if that was intended. µm/y Furthermore, Esth 4:11 (rva hvaw vya The presence of in 1:2 and lkw the familiar µ/y in 2:7 also appear insig- ) demonstrates that a genderless nificant.99 Nonetheless, both forms are plural was also available to the writer if found in contexts that describe attention desired. to YHWH’s torah or decree (hr/t – 1:2, Immediately following in 1:1 is and qjo – 2:7) by the man in the first a threefold description of the blessed psalm and by the king in the second. The man’s absence from the company of result in Psalm 1 of the man’s daily (µm/y) evildoers, followed by identification of torah meditation is expressed meta- his constant meditation in the torah (v. phorically as a tree that gives (˜tyw – 1:3) 2). Unanswered is his actual location its fruit. In Psalm 2 the edict consists of and a more substantive explication of the God’s promise to give (hntaw – v. 8) his wicked’s counsel, sinning, and scoffing. son the inheritance on a specific day (µ/yh Undoubtedly v. 2 provides information – v. 7). A further temporal reference in by way of contrast between meditation 42 FALL 2005

on the Lord’s torah (hwhy tr/tb) and the Exact lexical parallels as follows provide counsel of the wicked (µy[vr tx[b) in additional evidence. The wicked in Ps v. 1, highlighted by the direct opposites 1:1 “stand” in a way (Jrd) from which hwhy and µ[vr, and repeated preposition the blessed one abstains (dm[ alø). Both plus construct feminine noun. Likewise, 1:6 and 2:12 assure the destruction (dba) “the congregation of the righteous” of the same way (Jrd) seen in 1:1. That (µyqydx td[b) of v. 5 is the counterpart way of destruction seen in 2:12 is one semantically and phonologically to “the from which kings in 2:10 (µyklm) are counsel/council of the wicked” (µyqydx warned to abstain, but which was defined td[b) in v. 1. However, further concrete as their stance against the Lord and his details concerning the man’s actual abode anointed in 2:2 (≈ra yklm Wbxyty). So and the content of the wicked’s medita- links connecting the way of the wicked tion are supplied by Psalm 2. (Ps 1:1, 6) with the rebellion of nations Repetition of the verbal root (2:1–2) is provided not only by distribu- “meditate”in Ps 2:1 (Wghy) after its appear- tion of dba, Jrd and µyklm, but also by ance in 1:2 (hghy) specifies the meditation the semantic proximity of dm[ in 1:1 and of the wicked, now designated as nations Wbxyty in 2:2.107 and their rulers. They meditate “vanity” A counterpart to the subject of ses- (qyr), defined as planned rebellion against sion in Ps 1:1d is also provided by Psalm the rule of the Lord and his anointed. 2. It is not difficult to draw a connection Confirmation comes from the combina- between the conclave of conspiring rulers tion of dba and Jrd at the conclusion of in 2:2b and seated scoffers in 1:1d, but both psalms. The final clause of Psalm Psalm 2 will go on to identify the as yet 1 promises that “the way of the wicked unknown session of Psalm 1’s blessed will be destroyed” (dbato µy[vr Jrd), while one in v. 4. Just as Psalm 1 revealed the Ps 2:12 identifies the fate of rebellious blessed one’s object of meditation while kings: “and you are destroyed in the way” that of the wicked was delayed until (Jrd Wdbatow). So Psalm 2 reaffirms with Psalm 2, so the session of the former is identical terminology the destruction of not known until the second psalm. the wicked promised in 1:6, answers the The twofold occurrence of the root immediately following question of 2:1 bvy in 1:1d (bvy…bv/mbW), has as its overt (hml) directed at the apparent nonfulfil- and deliberate lexical counterpart the ment of 1:6,102 and identifies the wicked masculine participle bv/y of 2:4. Un- of the first as the rebels of the second.103 doubtedly further information regarding Phonological correspondence reinforces session is provided at this point. Indeed, this association. The articulation of 1:1d begins with a locale (bv/mb) and 2:4 Hebrew ‘ayin was apparently close pho- in response identifies another (µymvb) netically to gîmel,104 indicating the aural using the same preposition b. Each resonance of µy[vr105 (1:1b, 5a, 6b) and prepositional phrase of place includes µy/g Wvgr (2:1a). the identical consonants bêt, šîn, mêm, Additional correspondence be- so that phonological links combine with tween the wicked of Psalm 1 and nations those lexical to heighten the association. of Psalm 2 is provided by the semantic This can be extended to the second clause resemblance between “counsel/council” of Ps 2:4 where the combination lāmed, (tx[b) in 1:1 and the rulers of 2:2 who laryngeal and mêm (/ml g[ly), recalls the “have taken counsel together” (djy Wds/n).106 same in 1:1d (alø µyxl). Included is the 43 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

obvious semantic similarity between locale. Further support is found in Ps scoffing (1:1d), and derisive laughter 48:2–3, where the description of the holy (2:4a, b). mountain (˜/px ytkry ˜/yx rh…/vdq rh) The cumulative effect of these is identical to the celestial realm of Isa semantic, phonological, and lexical par- 14:13–14 (˜/px ytkryb d[/m rhb). allels is to inform the reader in Psalm 2 Final proof that the blessed and where in fact the blessed individual of anointed one is seated in the heavenly Psalm 1 does sit. Although these links realm comes from the closely parallel are straightforward, the implications are text of Psalm 110. Psalms 2 and 110 astounding. Can the man of Psalm 1 are particularly similar in content and now be identified as seated in heaven? vocabulary,109 not the least of which are It would appear that colon B of 2:4 found in the latter’s opening words: identifies that sitter as yndoa, obviating any possibility of identification with vyah of ynymyl bv yndoal hwhy µan – Ps 110:1 Psalm 1. Nonetheless, the nexus formed …yndoa qjcy µymvb bv/y – Ps 2:4 between 1:1d and 2:4 on various levels cannot be simply ignored nor considered The closely parallel vocabulary inconsequential. reveal that the same event of heavenly Answers to this question can be coronation is in view. Furthermore, the found in the immediate context and lan- distinction between the divine names hwhy guage of Ps 2:4 and of the Psalter at large. and yndoa suggested by Ps 2:2–4, with the First of all, the only two antecedents for latter (yndoa) including the human king the singular masculine participle bv/y is now confirmed and maintained in within the psalm itself are hwhy and /jyvm 110:1.110 As just noted, holy Zion (110:2, of v. 2, the latter being most proximate. 3 and 2:6), the place of this coronation, is Immediately previous to v. 4 the archaic clearly located in the heavenly realm of third person plural pronominal suffix divine session and power (110:1). Psalm /m– is found twice (v. 3) in the mouth of 2:2–3 indicated the participation of the recalcitrant rulers, uniting closely in God’s anointed one in divine power and reference both the Lord and his anointed. authority, but now v. 4 (and later 110:2) Both are simultaneous targets of the declares he is also partaking of heavenly rebellion and both possess the defied divine session. Furthermore, he is clearly governing constraints. Secondly, the identified as the blessed man of Psalm 1, divine epithet yndoa of 2:4b108 unexpect- however surprising that may appear. edly replaces hwhy used in v. 2. The poet Psalm 1 includes two contrasting has deliberately created this ambiguity, similes representing the ultimate fate and the implication of shared authority of the righteous man and the wicked.111 between YHWH and the anointed king Psalm 1’s healthy, fruit-bearing tree, (/jyvm) in 2:2 was undoubtedly prepara- becomes in Psalm 2 the all-conquering tory to it. Thirdly, the chosen king is king, heir to the nations. The chaff or established on holy Mt. Zion (yvdq rh wicked of Psalm 1 become the recalci- – v. 6), the location of the temple (cf. Ps trant nations and rulers in Psalm 2 and an 15:1a–b yvdq rhb…ylhab). In the follow- additional simile is composed to describe ing Ps 3:5 (/vdq rhm) it is clearly identi- their fate. Instead of driven chaff they fied as the place from which YHWH are characterized as pottery smashed by answers prayer, suggesting a heavenly the king himself. While the common 44 FALL 2005

preposition k is present in both similes (k), a palm tree or cedar “transplanted” (1:4; 2:9), there exist further phonological (µylWtv), in the house of the Lord, repeat- parallels between the verbs of destruction ing elements from Ps 1:3 (lWtv ≈[k).114 and the immediately preceding forms: The reference to “channels of water”(µym yglp – 1:3) also implies a temple context, Wnpdt rva ≈mk – 1:4 as confirmed by other psalm texts (µyhla µxpnt rx/y ylkk – 2:9 ry[ wyglp rhn – 46:5, µym alm µyhla glp – 65:10).115 Secondly, Ps 1:3 contains Three identical consonants are language seen in Ezekiel’s vision of the found in each verb and the preceding eschatological temple: relating particle (1:4), or masculine singular participle (2:9), conclude with the l/By al Whl[w…≈[k – Ps 1:3 sequence, sibilant, rêš. Such aural paral- Whl[ l/by al…≈[ – Ezek 47:12116 lels simply provide further confirmation of the fact that characters in Psalm 1 are Consequently, the man of Psalm subject to further comment in Psalm 2. 1 is being portrayed as a priest in the The final clause of Ps 1:3 (jylxy eschatological temple, again consistent hc[y rva lkw) also resonates intertextually with the portrayal in Ps 2:6. His royal with the description of Joseph in Gen characteristics were already suggested in 39:3, 23.112 Joseph is eventually elevated Ps 1:2 (meditation in the torah required to the highest position and authority in of king) with the result that both psalms the land under Pharoah, while the man attribute to him the dual role of king of Psalm 1 is elevated in Psalm 2 to the and priest. eschatological heavenly throne on Zion While the intertextual link to Eze- over all kings and nations. Evidence kiel 47 demonstrates the eschatological from the larger canon is then consistent vision present in Ps 1:3, there is further with that deduced from parallels between evidence for such a reading. The same v. the two psalms. 3 opens with a verbal form common to The anointed king of Psalm 2 is prophetic oracles directed to the distant established on God’s holy Mt. Zion, a future (hyhw). Note especially in this re- transparent reference to the sanctuary.113 gard Isa 2:2 (µymyh tyrjab hyhw).117 Once He is undoubtedly functioning as priest the eschatological thrust of the simile in and king in Zion, which the closely paral- Ps 1:3 is established, the contrasting de- lel Psalm 110 makes explicit (vv. 2, 4). If scription of the wicked’s destruction in vv. Ps 2:6 makes reference to the (ultimate) 4–6 (and the destiny of the righteous)118 temple, one might expect, in light of the is presumably ultimate as well.119 foregoing evidence for Psalm 1 to do Reference to judgment (fpvm) in likewise. First of all, the imagery and 1:5 is echoed again in 2:10, where the language of a transplanted tree is found same root is used in the warning to again in Ps 92:13–14 to describe the earthly judges (≈ra yfpv). This again righteous one in the temple: identifies the wicked of Psalm 1 with the recalcitrant rulers of Psalm 2 and reveals hwhy tybb µylWtv…zrak…rmtk that they are subject to a greater judge – Ps 92:13–14 and judgment. If they do not heed the warning of Ps 2:10ff they will suffer the Note how the righteous one is “like” destruction of 2:12 (Jrd Wdbatw), identi- 45 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

fied in 1:6 as that promised the wicked opening term of Ps 1:1 (yrev]aæ) instead (dbat µy[vr Jrdw). As seen repeatedly, of the second (vyah), since the former the wicked of Psalm 1 have been further is strictly speaking a masculine plural identified as the cabal of rulers and their construct, while the latter is an articular nations of Psalm 2 in revolt against the masculine singular.121 Consequently, its rule of the son of God. Correspondingly, rendering pluralizes a noun (vyah), clearly he is the blessed man of Psalm 1, now identified contextually as a masculine in Psalm 2 being granted the authority singular subject, and singularizes what to mete out that judgment. Just as the (at least on the formal level) is a plural simile of driven chaff in 1:4 is defined (yrev]aæ). A translation such as, “Oh the as destruction of the way in 1:6, so also blessings of the man…” would represent the simile of smashed pottery in 2:9 is the Hebrew text more faithfully. defined in 2:12 as destruction of the way.

Psalm 2 identifies the one who 1 Abbreviations will follow Patrick H. Alexander et metes out that destruction as the son al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA: of God, both in vv. 7–8 and 12. He is Hendrickson, 1999). 2 identified under the Aramaic form rb (v. Between these two forms the TNIV has rendered the lzrb prepositional phrase, /tr/tbW, “and in his teaching…,” 12) since he wields the (v. 9), con- presumably because the Tetragrammaton of colon sonantal alliteration lending more bite A is the antecedent to the masculine pronominal to the warning.120 Likewise, the wicked suffix. Note however that the nearest antecedent to yfpv the pronoun is in the immediately preceding noun rulers are identified as (v. 10) since /tr/tbW /xpj fbv phrase, “his delight”(… …), motivating they, who formerly wielded the , must Rashi’s comments as follows: now submit to the one held by God’s ‘ yy trwt tarqn ayh hljtm – hghy wtrwtbw chosen king and son. wtrwt tarqn ayh hb lm[vmw

Conclusion Menahem Cohen, Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘HaKeter’: Psalms, In conclusion, it would appear that Part I (Ramat–Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University, 2003), 2. the TNIV translators have adopted one 3 The aforementioned change in the TNIV from the viewpoint of Psalm 1, but certainly not NIV resembles that seen between the NRSV and the only one represented in the history RSV in Psalm 1. The former reads, “Happy are those who do not follow…or take…or sit…but their of interpretation. More recent studies delight…they meditate…They are like trees…all of the first psalm and its relationship that they do, they prosper,” whereas the latter reads, to the second have further undermined “Blessed is the man who walks not…nor stands…nor sits…but his delight…he meditates…He is like a this generalizing interpretation. Most tree…all that he does, he prospers.” On the other importantly, the TNIV translators have hand, the latest edition of the Jewish Publication ignored the viewpoint of the Psalter’s Society Tanakh translation (1999) maintains the masculine singular: “Happy is the man who has not final composer, expressed through its followed…or taken…or joined…his delight, and juxtaposition and resonance with Psalm he studies…He is like a tree…whatever it produces 2. That composer expended considerable thrives.” vyah 4 Cf. LXX (maka,rioj avnh,r o]j ouvk evporeuqh….), literary effort to identify of Ps 1:1–3 ˚ylh ald rbgd yh/bWf Targum (.… ), Peshitta (.twbwhy as the chosen messiah in the second. He lgbr’ db’wrh’ . d‘wl’ l’ hlk), and Vulgate (Beatus vir is not any person, nor any man, but rather qui non abiit….). 5 the all-conquering king and son of God Diodore of Tarsus, Commentary on Psalms 1–51 (trans. Robert C. Hill; Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 5. portrayed in Psalm 2. 6 Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1–72 (Nashville: Abingdon Ironically, the TNIV would have Press, 2002), 41–42. Those holding the ethical view better served the text by pluralizing the are listed as “Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome’s Tractates 46 FALL 2005

(disputed attribution), Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of 23 Clifford, (Psalms 1–72, 39) states this explicitly: Alexandria and’ the Antiochene School.” His list “NRSV makes the righteous plural in order to make of those holding to the christological view includes the translation gender inclusive.” “Hippolytus, Jerome, Augustine, Cassiodorus and the 24 As with Alonso–Schökel, the definite article is later Latin tradition generally.” Clifford would mark conveniently omitted. Augustine as the watershed and source of christo- 25 H.-J. Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary logical readings in later Latin tradition in contrast to (trans. H. C. Oswald; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, earlier ethical views. His characterizes christological 1993), 114, 121. readings as “esoteric ingenuity”(42). 26 Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (trans. H. 7 William G. Braude, The Midrash on Psalms (vol. 1; Hartwell; London: SCM Press, 1962), 102, 106. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1959), 3–34. 27 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (The Wart- 8 Ibid., 22–23. Reading the pronoun suffix of “and burg Press, 1959; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book in his law” (/tr/tbW) as a reference to the individual House, 1969), 36. rabbi. 28 Alexander, Commentary on Psalms, 19. 9 St. Justin Martyr, The First and Second Apologies(trans. 29 Charles A. Briggs and Emilie G. Briggs, A Critical L. W. Barnard, New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 50–51. and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, vol. Brownlee, “Psalms 1–2,” 334, observes that “Justin 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987 impression), Martyr could cite the whole of Pss 1 and 2 as a single 4–5. messianic prophecy.” 30 Adele Berlin and Marc Z. Brettler, eds., The Jewish 10 “This statement (Ps 1:1) should be understood as Study Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, referring to our Lord Jesus Christ….”Augustine, 2004), 1284–85. Exposition of the Psalms; 1–32 (Part 3, vol. 15 of The 31 Note the opening words of M. D. Goulder, The Works of Saint Augustine; A Translation for the 21st Psalms of the Return (Book V, Psalms 107–150) Century; ed. J. E. Rotelle; translation and notes by ( JSOTSS 258; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, M. Boulding, introduction by M. Fiedrowicz, Hyde 1998), 8: “The earliest commentary on the psalms is Park, NY: New City Press), 67. the Psalter.” 11 See Clifford, Psalms 1–72, 41. 32 Georg P. Braulik, “Psalter and Messiah: Towards a 12 Matt 13:49 – kai. avforiou/sin tou.j ponhrou.j Christological Understanding of the Psalms in the evk me,sou tw/n dikai,wn Old Testament and the Church Fathers,” in Psalms 13 John Calvin, Commmentary on the Book of Psalms (vol and Liturgy (JSOTSS 410; ed. D. J. Human and 1; trans. J. Anderson; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation C. J. A. Vos; London: T & T Clark International, Society, 1845; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 1. 2004), 18–19. Braulik also argues that the two pa- 14 Hilton C. Oswald, ed., First Lectures on the Psalms I tristic commentators, Hippolytus and Asterius (pp. (vol. 10 of Luther’s Works; St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 30–36), saw interpretive relevance in the sequence 1974), 11. of the psalms. 15 Joseph A. Alexander, Commentary on the Psalms 33 The Talmud of Babylonia, An American Translation. I: (Edinburgh: A. Elliot and J. Thin, 1864; repr., Grand Tractate Berakhot. (trans. Jacob Neusner; Chico, CA: Rapids: Kregel, 1991), 17. Scholars Press, 1984), 82–83. See also Berlin and 16 Franz Delitzsch, Psalms. Three Volumes in One: Brettler, The Jewish Study Bible, 1285; Hakham, Sefer C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Tehillim, 10 [y]; Delitzsch, Psalms, 82; Jesper Høgen- Testament (vol. 5; trans. James Martin; repr., Grand haven, “The Opening of the Psalter: A Study in Jewish Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 82. Theology,” SJOT 15 (2001): 169–80, and William 17 Hermann Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres H. Brownlee, “Psalms 1–2 as a Coronation Liturgy,” of the Religious Lyric of Israel (completed by J. Begrich; Biblica 52 (1971): 321 (n. 2), 322 (nn. 1, 2). trans. J. D. Nogalski; Macon, GA: Mercer Univ. Press, 34 Diodore, Commentary on Psalms, 10; St. Justin Mar- 1998), 293–96. tyr, The First and Second Apologies, 50–51. 18 A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge: 35 John T. Willis, “Psalm 1 –– An Entity,” ZAW 9 Cambridge University Press, 1951), 1. (1979): 389, and Høgenhaven, “The Opening of the 19 Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50 (WBC 19; Waco: Psalter,” 171, n. 10. Word Books, 1983), 58–62. 36 Willis (“Psalm 1––An Entity,” 381) lists the Ken- 20 Amos Hakham, Sefer Tehillim ( Jerusalem: Mossad nicott and de Rossi manuscripts. Cf. also Delitzsch, HaRav Kook, 1979), 3 [g]. Psalms, 82. Willis (“Psalm 1––An Entity,” 381–401), 21 “Con alcance universal, ya que se trata de ’îš, de uno by way of response to Brownlee (“Psalms 1–2 as cualquiera.” Luis Alonso Schökel and Cecilia Carniti, a Coronation Liturgy”) et al, includes a thorough Salmos I (Estella, España: Editorial Verbo Divino), rehearsal of the ancient evidence and admits that 139. It is noteworthy that Alonso Schökel summarily it is “formidable” (389). He correctly criticizes the omits the definite article in this statement (’îš). idea of the two being one original psalm. However, 22 G. Wilson, Psalms: Volume 1 (The NIV Application his statement that the two psalms “should be studied Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), separately” (401), ignores the interpretive implications 93. behind their juxtaposition and literary bonding. He 47 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

further argues that lexical links between the two dis- Promise” in The Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. crete and separate Psalms 2 and 3 do not prove their J. Clinton McCann; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic unity. Indeed, but the few parallels he cites (there are Press, 1993), 48. more), support the reading of Psalm 3 in the light of 62 Another example is the sequence of “individual la- Psalm 2, just as in the case of Psalms 1 and 2. ment” (Ps 86), “Zion psalm” (Ps 87) and “individual 37 For a description of the manuscript and rabbinic lament” (Ps 88). evidence see, Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commen- 63 Cf. the comments of Harry P. Nasuti, “The Interpre- tary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United tive Significance of Sequence and Selection in the Bible Societies, 1975), 412–14, and Willis, “Psalm Book of Psalms,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition 1––An Entity,” 385. and Reception (eds. P.W. Flint and P.D. Miller Jr.; 38 Delitzsch, Psalms, 82. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 322: “First of all, some of these 39 Alexander, Commentary on Psalms, 27. analyses clearly depend on modern form-critical defi- 40 Brownlee, “Psalms 1–2,” 322–24. Regarding the nitions of individual psalms, definitions that might use of the root bvy in Pss 1:1 and 2:4, he makes the not necessarily have been shared by those responsible unconvincing assertion that it is “sheer coincidence” for the shaping of the Psalter…the distribution of (323). psalm ‘types’ is more a matter of dominant tenden- 41 Ibid., 326. cies than of exclusive groupings of certain types in 42 Ibid., 324 different parts of the Psalter…one can certainly find 43 Pierre Auffret, The Literary Structure of Psalm 2 laments in the latter part of the Psalter and psalms of ( JSOTSS 3; Sheffield: JSOT, 1977), 32–33. praise and thanskgiving in the earlier parts.” 44 Ibid., 34. 64 Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms, 2–3: 45 Joseph P. Brennan, “Psalms 1–8: Some Hidden “There can be little doubt that one finds the text of Harmonies,” BTB 10 (1980), 25. the psalter in a particularly dismal condition…No 46 Ibid. internal ordering principle for the individual psalms has 47 Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Con- been transmitted for the whole…to be sure, sometimes struct: A Study in the Sapientalizing of the Old Testament related psalms stand together in the collection….the (New York: de Gruyter, 1980), 136–44. particular task of psalm studies should be to rediscover the 48 Ibid. Sheppard also notes that the LXX has added relationships between the individual songs that did not dikai,a to Ps 2:12 (Jrd Wdbatw becomes avpolei/sqe occur with the transmission.” evx o`dou/ dikai,aj) in order to heighten the verbal 65 Wilson, The Editing, 205. symmetry with 1:6 (µyqydx Jrd). He concludes that 66 J. Clinton McCann, The Book of Psalms (NIB 6; the LXX, “seizes upon this functional resonance Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 642, 689. predisposed by the redactional association of the two 67 Ibid., 689. psalms and heightens the effect” (141). 68 Ibid., 683–4. 49 Ibid., 142. 69 Patrick Miller, “The Beginning of the Psalter”inThe 50 Hakham, Sefer Tehillim, 10 [y] .la πrfxm aWhw Shape and Shaping of the Psalter (ed. J. Clinton Mc- tja hbyfjl a r/mzm Cann; JSOTSS 159; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic 51 Ibid. Press, 1993), 85. 52 Gerald H. Wilson, The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter 70 Ibid., 91. (SBLDS 76; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985). 71 Ibid. He rightly observes the identification of the 53 Ibid., 143, 209–210 wicked in the first (µy[vr—vv. 1, 4, 5, 6) with the na- 54 Gianni Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuch als Einheit: tions in the second (µy/g—v.1), and its confirmation in Eine synchrone Analyse von Psalm 1–41 (Frankfurt Ps 9:17–18 (ibid., 90). Ps 9:17–18 describe the “judg- am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), 51. Barbiero cites the ment” (fpvm—cf. Ps 1:5) executed upon the “wicked” supporting statement of Delitzsch in Symbolae ad (µy[vr…[vr—cf. Ps 1:1, 5, 6), further specified as “all Psalmos illustrandos isagogicae (Leipzig, 1846), 46, as the nations” (µy/g lk—cf. Ps 2:1, 8). follows: “Notandum est praeterea, Psalterii librum 72 F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, Die Psalmen I: Psalm I., uti duobus yrva incipit, sic duobus yrva [40, 5. 41, 1–50 (NEB; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993), 51: “die 2.] concludi.” in 21–3 geschilderte Revolte ist nun als Paradigma 55 In addition, note ytxpj in 41:12 (cf. 1:2), rvay in des in 11.6b geschilderten Treibens »der Frevler« zu 41:3 (cf. 1:1) and lykcm in 41:2 (cf. 2:10). lesen.” They note as well connections between the 56 Wilson, The Editing, 207–14. He also demonstrates first two psalms and Psalms 148–150, those to the how the superscriptions are consistent with book Torah (Deut 6:13, 15) and to Prophets ( Josh 1:7, 8, divisions marked by doxologies (154–67). Mal 3:16–20). 57 Ibid., 215. 73 Barbiero, Das erste Psalmenbuch, 31–61. 58 Ibid., 218. 74 Ibid., 37. 59 Ibid., 220–21. 75 Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters (FAT 60 Ibid., 219. 9; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1994), 9: “Gemeinsam 61 Gerald H. Wilson, “Understanding the Purposeful ist beiden Psalmen trotz des unterschiedlichen mo- Arrangement of Psalms in the Psalter: Pitfalls and tivfeldes von Weisheits– bzw. Königspsalmen die 48 FALL 2005

gegenüberstellung des einzelnen Gottgemäßen mit the Law of the King through the deliberate juxtaposi- den vielen Gegnern Gottes. Ps 2 ist verschiedentlich tion of kingship psalms alongside torah psalms.” zusammen mit Ps 1 als ein Psalm angesprochen 89 Grant, The King as Exemplar, 3. worden.” Observe here again how form–critical cat- 90 Ibid., 67. egorizations work at cross–purposes with the present 91 Ibid., 15, “…but it seems unlikely that the redactors shape of the Psalter. of the Psalter used genre classification as an organi- 76 A. Wénin, “Le psaume 1 et l’‘encadrement’ du livre zational tool––content (including superscriptions) des louanges,” in Ouvrir les Écritures, (FS P. Beau- rather than type seems to have directed the editorial champ; ed. P. Bovati and R. Meynet; Paris: LeDiv, placement of the psalms.” 1995), 168, “Dans le paralléle du Ps 2 (versets 1–3) 92 The initial ’ālep of yrva opens the psalm and with l’idée est prolongée. Les méchants –– ici, les nations the initial tāw of the final form dbato forms an ab- et leurs rois –– s’opposent á l’homme de la Loi du breviated acrostic, and thereby proves the original Seigneur –– le messie, en l’ocurrence –– en se liguant integrity of this psalm. contre lui et contre le Seigneur.” 93 There are two additional instances of this preposition 77 “N’est–il pas dit d’ailleurs que la voie des rebelles in 2:2c which governs a personal object, as opposed to se perd (v. 12), comme se perd celle des impies en those of 1:3 and 2:6 governing locative noun comple- Ps 1, 6? Ce n’est pas par un procédé artificiel que ments. As will be seen, the latter two instances of le Psaume 2 a été joint au Psaume 1 pour former this preposition are also linked through accompanying le prélude du psautier; malgré la différence de style, forms of phonological similarity. ils ont été mis intentionnellement à la suite l’un de 94 See Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Intro- l’autre, pour préciser que l’opposition des deux voies duction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: est un gigantesque affrontement, que la réussite du Eisenbrauns, 1990), 681: “…yrev]aæ ‘O the blessings Juste, c’est le Jugement du Roi–Messie, que l’ére mes- of, enviable the situation of,’ a petrified plural noun sianique, c’est la réalisation, à travers les aléas et les found only in construct phrases.” Rashi also prefers, bouleversements visibles de l’histoire, du plan d’un as noted by Mayer I. Gruber in Rashi’s Commentary Dieu tout puissant….” M. Manatti, Les Psaumes on Psalms 1–89 (Books I–III) with English Translation, (Tome I; Paris: Desclée De Brouwer, 1966), 92. She Introduction and Notes (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), observes (n. 10) that the verb to succeed in Ps 1:3 50, to read yrva as the plural subject of a nominal (jylxy) is applied to the warring king messiah in Ps sentence. 45:5 (jlx). Military success is already implied in jylxy 95 The identity of “him” (/b) is found in the closest of Ps 1:3 by its association with Josh 1:8 (jylxt), as antecedent noun “son” (rb), who wields the conso- will be argued below. nantly resonant “iron” (lzrb) rod, and is the chosen 78 Barbiero, Das erste, 40, n. 53, notes use of ≈mok in Isa anointed king of 2:2, 6, 7. As will be seen, parallels 17:13; 41:15; Hos 13:3; Zeph 2:2. between the psalms point clearly to him being also 79 “Die eschatologische Metapher der Spreu verbindet the man of Ps 1:1, so that the pair of psalms begin Ps 1,4 mit Mal 3,19.” Barbiero (ibid., 39–40). (vyah yrva) and end (/b...yrva) with reference to the 80 Ibid., 39–40. same individual man. 81 Ibid., 40. 96 This preposition in 1:5 is simply part of compound 82 Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as conjunction (˜k l[), while the twofold use in 2:2 Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 518. indicates the personal target of a revolt. 83 Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction 97 Cf. Pierre Auffret, “Complements sur la structure lit- (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 249. teraire du Ps 2 et son rapport au Ps 1,” BN 35 (1986): 84 Ibid. 13, “En 1, 3 et 2, 6 nous lisons la même préposition ‘l 85 Hossfeld and Zenger, Die Psalmen I, 51; “Gegenüber pour introduire à une précision de lieu.” The twofold dem »Grundpsalm« tritt nun die eschatologische use of the same l[ in the rebellion of Ps 2:2 provides Zielperspektive der universalen Königsherrschaft a bridge to 3:2 where the revolt against divine rule JHWHs in den Vordergrund (vgl. 210–11 mit 7211), is explored further. die auch den Schluß des Psalmenbuchs bestimmt.” 98 See Grant, The King as Exemplar, 66–70, and other 86 James L. Mays, “The Place of the Torah-Psalms in studies cited there. Psalm 1:2, 3 (jylxy…hlylw µm/y hghy the Psalter,” JBL 106/1 (1987): 10. /tr/tbW) are quite explicitly linked to Josh 1:8 87 David C. Mitchell, The Message of the Psalter: An Es- (jylxt…hlylw µm/y /b tyghw…hr/th), while the previ- chatological Programme in the Book of Psalms (JSOTSS ous Josh 1:7 252; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 87. (˜[ml lwamcW ˜ymy Wnmm rWst la…hr/th) overtly recalls His second option for the interpretation of Psalm 1 Deut 17:19–20 as delineating a person not the king is an example of (˜[ml lwamcW ˜ymy hwxmh ˜m rWs ytlblW…hr/th). Thus the traditional hortatory view of Psalm 1. Psalm 1 and Deuteronomy 17 are indirectly, yet unde- 88 Jamie A. Grant, The King as Exemplar: The Function niably linked. Once the intertextuality is established, of Deuteronomy’s Kingship Law in the Shaping of the use of terms indicating “session” immediately previ- Book of Psalms (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, ous to Ps 1:2 in v. 1 (bvy…bv/mbW) can be compared 2004), 2: “the editors wished to reflect the theology of with Deut 17:18 (/tbvk), and suggest anticipation of 49 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

enthronement from the psalm’s beginning. Further- tween the blessed man and the wicked. more, the intertextual parallels between 1 Kgs 2:2–3; 112 /dyb jylxm hwhy hc[ aWh rva lkw – Gen 39:2 2 Chr 28:20; 2 Chr 32:7; 34:31; 35:26, and Josh 1 jylxm hwhy hc[ aWh rvaw – Gen 39:23 proves the royal overtones of the latter was recognized 113 Cf. Ps 15:1 yvdq rhb…ylhab, as noted above. The by biblical writers. association between Davidic covenant and temple of 99 They are significant for Auffret,The Literary Structure, Psalm 2 is also seen in Ps 132:13–14 where Zion is 32–33: “But 2:7–9 uses again two words from 1:2–3: identified as God’s eternal dwelling place and where a ym and ntn. In 1:2–3 it is the righteous man who horn for David would sprout forth (v. 17). Of course, chooses to meditate on the law all day long and thus temple and house of David are already inextricably in the end yields his fruit. In 2:7–9 it is Yahweh who linked in 2 Samuel 7. chooses the day when he makes of his elect one his 114 Cf. J. F. D. Creach, “Like a Tree Planted by the son and gives him the nations as an inheritance. So Temple Stream: The Portrait of the Righteous in there are two choices, and two gifts, which correspond Psalm 1.3,” CBQ 61 (1999): 34–46. well to one another.” 115 Ps 65:2, 5 reveal the µyhla glp of v. 10 is associated 100 Absence of an intervening superscription over Psalm with the temple. See William P. Brown, Seeing the 2 strengthens the integrative effect. Psalms (Louisville: WJK, 2002), 74. 101 Cf. Exod 35:22, 23; 25:2, Lev 21:18, 21; Josh 1:18; 116 Ezekiel 47 is also replete with language from Gen 2, 1 Sam 22:2; 2 Sam 15:4; Ezek 9:6. indicating that the eschatological sanctuary represents 102 The use ofhml at the outset of a psalm questioning a restored Eden. promises of the previous (2:1) is found again in Psalm 117 Identical to Mic 4:1 (µymyh tyrja hyhw). See also the 10. The question of 10:1 hrxb( t/t[l µyl[t…hml) is same verb form in Mic 5:4, 6, 9; Amos 8:9; Joel 3:1; specifically directed at the nonfulfilment of 9:10 (hrxb 4:17, 18; Hos 1:5; 2:1 and passim. Cf. GKC §112y, t/t[l bgcm). Note also the absence of superscription “Very frequently the announcement of a future event between Psalms 9 and 10. is attached by means of hy:h;w“ and it shall come to pass.” 103 Cf. comment of Auffret, “Complements sur…” 13, 118 Psalm 2:12 provides further identification of the “Comme en outre 1, 6b et 2, 1–3 évoquent fin et suddenly appearing righteous in 1:5–6 as those who révolte des ennemis de Yahvé….” trust in the son of God. As already noted, the sec- 104 As illustrated by the Greek transliteration of place ond psalm also provides further identification of the names; Ga,za for hz[ and Go,morra for hrmo[. The wicked in Psalm 1. medial position of gîmel (Wvgr) may have occasioned 119 Both Targum (abr anyd µ/yb y[yvr ˜wmwqy al ˜k lWfm) less constriction and thus closer resemblance to ‘ayin. and LXX (dia. tou/to ouvk avvnasth,sontai avsebei/j The latter is characterized in a recent grammar (Allen evn kri,sei) read Ps 1:5 in this manner and for good P. Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew, Grand Rapids: reason. See Sue Gillingham, “From Liturgy to Baker, 2001, 24) as “a pharyngeal…producing a gut- Prophecy: The Use of Psalmody in Second Temple tural sound rgh….In its strongest form, it is similar Judaism,” CBQ 64 (2002): 480. to the beginning of the g sound, but it is not g––not 120 Note as well the same sequence bêt – rêš repeated enough closure takes place in the throat to make g.” in the final form of each of three, increasingly shorter, 105 Consonantal alliteration between the explicitly imperative-initial clauses across vv. 11–12a: contrasted µy[vr and (vyah) yrva in 1:1 is a further example of the phonological aspect of Hebrew poetry. rb Wqvn hd[rb Wlygw haryb hwhy ta Wdb[ 106 The similar opening consonantal sequence (rēš, sibilant) between masculine plural nouns “rulers“ The final and shortest command, “kiss the son!” µynz/r µy[vr ( ) of 2:2b and “wicked” ( ) of 1:1, 5, 6, may constitutes a climactic and phonologically parallel be another example of supporting phonological conclusion. parallelism. 121 Recognized by Rashi: µda lv wyt/lhtw wyrWva (“The 107 bxn dm[ Cf. Isa 21:8 – … commendations and praises of a man…”) M. Cohen, 108 This reading is clearly preferred based on its distinc- Mikra’ot Gedolot, 2. tiveness or difficulty, thereby giving rise to the more common hwhy seen in numerous manuscripts noted in the apparatus of BHS. 109 Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Intro- duction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 248, “…in Ps.110 we again have a royal psalm which has particularly clear parallels to Ps.2.” 110 If Masoretic vocalization is ignored, the form yndoa is identical in 110:1 and 2:4. Note the interpretive reversion to yn:doa in 110:5 after the initial ynIdoa of 110:1, in spite of ˜ymy being common to both contexts. 111 Note the consonance between ≈[k (1:3) and ≈mk (1:4), focusing attention on the contrast drawn be- 50 FALL 2005 JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 51-55 Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve: How the TNIV Cuts Off the Ancient Conversation Peter R. Schemm, Jr. Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Dean, Southeastern College at Wake Forest Associate Professor of Christian Theology Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina

Michael E. Travers Professor of English Southeastern College at Wake Forest, Wake Forest, North Carolina

In order to sustain the ancient conversation about the “Sons of Adam” and Introduction “Daughters of Eve,” we offer this essay. So God created man in his own In it we hope to (1) introduce the reader image, in the image of God he to C. S. Lewis as one who tutors us in the created him; male and female he conversation; (2) suggest the importance created them (Gen 1:27 ESV). of the conversation in the great literature The “conversation” we address in the of the ages; and (3) argue for the value present essay is as old as God’s creation of retaining such language in the English of “man” (’ādām), for “male and female he Bible today. created them.” Christian theology rightly invests everything in the fact that God has Lewis as a Tutor in the spoken and that he has done so perfectly Conversation and authoritatively. The ancient conver- We take our title from The Chron- sation begins in God’s word before man icles of Narnia. The “Sons of Adam” and fell into sin, and it continues to this day. “Daughters of Eve” are the human chil- Sin distorts the conversation, but it does dren who enter C. S. Lewis’s imaginary not negate or abrogate it. Unfortunately, world of Narnia. The terminology Lewis the ancient discourse has been hindered chooses to describe the humans in the recently in an unexpected manner. Some stories is significant, for it points to have chosen to cut it off intentionally be- gender and heritage. Sons and daughters cause its language is said to be no longer become husbands and wives, and, in these an effective means of communication. stories, kings and queens. They are the Indeed, the translators of Today’s New only characters in the Narnia stories who International Version (TNIV) have cut are “man” (’ādām) and as such the only off the ancient conversation. ones descended from Adam and Eve. 51 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

The Sons of Adam and Daughters the battle of Troy and has labored hard of Eve are present at all the important and long to return home to Ithaca. (To events in Narnian history. In The Magi- be sure, he has been unfaithful to his cian’s Nephew, they witness the creation wife in the forced relationship with the of Narnia. In this story, Aslan calls Di- goddess, Calypso.2) For twenty years, gory a “Son of Adam” and a few pages his wife has been queen of Ithaca, and later addresses him as “My son, my son,” “Nobody’s” wife. The reunion scene, fol- relating him first to Adam and Eve and lowing Odysseus’s defeat of the suitors, secondly to himself.1 The Sons of Adam is one of the tender scenes of ancient and Daughters of Eve participate in the literature. Penelope, worried that a god important points in Narnian history, might be impersonating Odysseus, goads always anticipating Aslan’s return. And him into telling the tale of their marriage they are present in The Last Battle at the bed which he had carved from a live olive consummation of time when Narnia tree. When she is convinced that this man is destroyed and they enter “heaven” is Odysseus, she joyously runs to him with Aslan. Throughout The Chronicles and throws her arms around his neck. of Narnia, there is an inherent irony in Penelope is a masterpiece of characteriza- the titles the children are given, for the tion, a fully-developed person—“valiant” White Witch (Aslan’s sworn enemy and and “faithful,” as she is described in Book emissary of Satan, if you will) has no way XXIV—and a loving wife. Homer under- to refer to them other than by the terms stood the conversation and made it the “Sons of Adam” and “Daughters of Eve;” climax of his last epic. she too is under Aslan’s dominion. In Much of the world’s literature tells subtle ways like this, Lewis shows that the tales of the dysfunctional relation- “man” (’ādām) is grounded in the fabric of ships of men and women. Chaucer’s nature and “super-nature” in Narnia. famous gallery of characters in The Canterbury Tales includes only two The Conversation in Literature women—the prioress and the Wife of When we turn to the great litera- Bath, both of whom have failed to be all ture of the ages, we discover the ancient they were made to be. The two women conversation of man and woman in all are diametrical opposites. The prioress but the sagas of early Germanic culture. has chosen the cloister over marriage, In the classical epics, we find the relation- and the Wife of Bath has buried five hus- ship of men and women to be important, bands and lived wantonly. The important as we do throughout the later literature point is that neither woman is happy. The of the West. How could it be otherwise? prioress attempts to satisfy her desire to Helen’s face may have launched a thou- be a woman of the world in social nice- sand ships, but it was the treacherous ties inappropriate to her office, and the betrayal of Menelaus and Helen’s mar- Wife of Bath flaunts herself, looking for riage by Paris of Troy that demanded husband number six. retribution. One does not accept a man’s Jumping three centuries, we turn hospitality and then leave with his wife. to John Milton’s Paradise Lost, that One of the great scenes in ancient great epic on the fall of man. Milton’s literature is the reunion of Odysseus presentation of the first married pair in and his wife Penelope in Book XXIII of their prelapsarian state emphasizes the The Odyssey. Odysseus has been fighting complementary, respective functions of 52 FALL 2005

the man and woman in marriage,3 and speak and, as such, it speaks to the man- his portrait of the fall in the Garden of woman relationship as it should be. The Eden shows Adam uxoriously forsaking early chapters of Genesis begin the con- his God-given role as head to a wife versation of “man” (’ādām) as male and who has already decided to bring him female (Gen 1:26–28; 2:18–25; 5:1–2). In down with her in sin.4 The contrast could order for this conversation to continue in not be greater. Still, at the end of the a meaningful way, English translations of poem, Adam and Eve leave Eden “hand the Bible must be reliable. The problem in hand”5 committed to their roles as with the TNIV is that it does not sustain husband and wife in a world of woe, the what reliable English translations have result of their own sin. In Paradise Lost, passed down to it as part of the ancient Milton shows the ideal conversation and conversation. Simply put, it neuters the the damage done to it by sin. language of “man” introduced in Gen- Fast forward three centuries again, esis (cf. 1:26–27; 5:2)—the language this time to F. Scott Fitzgerald’s clas- we are identifying with the terms “Sons sic American novel, The Great Gatsby. of Adam” and “Daughters of Eve.” But Jay Gatz loves a married woman, Daisy “man” ought to be retained because it is an Buchanan. He has loved her since before indispensable canonical thread interwo- she was married, and, to be sure, her ven throughout the language of creation, marriage to Tom Buchanan is not happy. anticipation, and consummation. Throughout the poignant and at times painful novel, Fitzgerald anatomizes the Creation disaster Gatsby’s pursuit of Daisy creates: When the TNIV replaces “man” Tom Buchanan has an affair with Myrtle with “human beings” in Gen 1:26–27 Wilson; in a freak accident, Daisy kills and Gen 5:2 it obscures the unity of the Myrtle, and Gatsby takes the blame; race created as “man.”6 In the absence of George Wilson, Myrtle’s husband, shoots this textual link, humanity is no longer Gatsby and then kills himself. The prin- seen as a race directly related to Adam, cipal actors flaunt the conversation and the first man. Without unity individual pay with their lives. men and women are disconnected from The examples are legion—virtually Adam and Eve. The creation story reads unanimous. The conversation of men and more like an encyclopedia than a well- women in their gender roles is rarely written narrative. The new story is built pretty in the world’s literature, and is to on individual beings that are distantly be expected, is it not? We live in a fallen related. Without unity the ancient cre- world, and marriage is one of the stress ation story—including its understand- points in human relations. ing of gender roles—does not connect to those in the rest of history, those The Conversation in the throughout the literary conversation, and English Bible those today. It is precisely because of the dys- function in gender roles in a fallen world Anticipation that the Bible ought to be afforded the Psalm 8 is another troubling ex- proper place in the ancient conversation. ample where the TNIV cuts the linguistic Scripture is the authoritative source of thread. It is troubling because the absence the “ancient conversation” of which we of “man” does not prompt the reader to 53 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

anticipate the full humanity and perfect Consummation dominion of the last Adam, which was Finally, the TNIV obscures the lost by the first Adam. The psalmist, restoration and consummation of man though reflecting on creation, speaks of in the last Adam. It replaces “man” with a glorious dominion of man (8:5–8) that “mere mortals” and “son of man” with is presently not “strictly true,” to borrow “human beings” in Heb 2:6. This replace- 7 the words of C. S. Lewis. Man in his ment disconnects the created and fallen fallen condition is often anything but man from the perfect man by removing glorious and honorable and exercising the language that demonstrates the godly dominion. It is most fitting, there- unity of the race. Yet this is precisely the fore, to render ’ĕnôsh “man” (8:4) in order connection that the writer of Hebrews to indicate the frailty of mankind—an intends to make. The author would enter imperfection that will only be fully and the “ancient conversation” saying that finally perfected in the ultimate man. man, created for dominion, glory, and In the TNIV ’ĕnôsh is translated honor, but fallen from that lofty place, as “mere mortals” (8:4) replacing the has been restored through his unity with singular “man,” again removing the sense the consummate man. But by changing of the unity of mankind. Perhaps even the inspired language of Scripture to more disturbing, however, is the removal meet modern sensibilities, the TNIV 8 of the phrase “son of man” (8:4). It has cuts him off. been replaced with the plural “human The glory and honor that the cre- beings,” a somewhat amorphous term ated man lost has already been restored that does not convey the individuality in Jesus Christ, though it is not yet fully and personality found in “son of man.” It realized in a cosmic sense. We read in the is more precise to render ben-ādām “son NT of the full and perfect display of the of man,” not “human being” (even in the glory of God in man—the man Christ singular), because the former conveys a Jesus. Indeed, the writer of Hebrews says, sense of origin and continuity that the “He is the radiance of the glory of God latter does not. Indeed, all of mankind and the exact imprint of his nature” (1:3). is related to Adam. Both the origin and The author goes on to explain that he is continuity of this relation are seen on two the Son of God (1:5ff ) and the Son of levels: (1) the original life God gave to Man (2:5ff ); all the fullness of deity and Adam and (2) the image of God in man, humanity dwells in Jesus Christ. Looking both of which are passed on in the son to Psalm 8, the author explains that the 9 (Gen 5:3; 9:6). In this sense, we are all Son became man to taste death for every- sons of Adam, and we all await—with one so that in him the dominion, glory, great anticipation—ultimate conformity and honor might be “strictly true” for to the image of the last Adam. It is the man. In Jesus we see man crowned with Genesis language extended in Psalm 8 glory and honor; through his victorious and woven throughout Scripture that death we see man fully restored; in the promotes anticipation in the reader, an world to come we see the consummation anticipation the author of Hebrews had, of man—he was made like us that we as seen below. might reign with him.

54 FALL 2005

6 This unity is clearly indicated by the singular Hebrew Conclusion noun ’ādām. Throughout Genesis 1–11 there is an The instances in which the TNIV intentional and precise use of the singular “man” to abrogates or negates the language of refer to all of mankind. Not translating ’ādām as “man” “man” (’ādām) are simply inaccurate is significant because it obscures the author’s intentional connection between “man” and “mankind.” The translations which cut counter to the most awkward rendering of ’ādām as “human beings” weight of Scripture and the realities of is found in Genesis 5. Gen 5:1 in the TNIV speaks human gender distinctions. The litera- of “Adam’s family line.” The author’s intention is to describe the unity shared by those who follow after ture of the ages participates in the great Adam. But in Gen 5:2 the TNIV translates ’ādām conversation by expressing the reality of as “human beings,” which conceals the connection gender inscribed by God on the created the author intends to make by using ’ādām in 5:1a for the proper name, ’ādām in 5:1b to describe his order. C. S. Lewis addressed the funda- descendents, and ’ādām for the whole race beginning mental issue of gender in all of his fiction, with Adam and Eve in 5:2. Using “human beings” not just The Chronicles of Narnia, and clearly hides the author’s verbal connections for the English reader. developed a worldview that sees gender 7 10 C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: emblazoned in all of created nature. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1958), 133. Modern attempts to neutralize gender 8 To their credit, the Committee on Bible Translation language have not removed the issue; does offer “a son of man” as an alternate reading in a footnote. they have only obscured it. 9 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Acher, Jr., and Bruce K. When we turn to Bible transla- Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament tions, we find the same dilemma. In an at- (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 114. 10 Several of C. S. Lewis’s works of fiction come to tempt to reduce or remove the “problem” mind here. Perelandra and That Hideous Strength are of gender in Scripture, the translators of the second and third novels in the Ransom trilogy. In the TNIV have ironically neutralized Perelandra, Lewis shows us a paradise retained, and in That Hideous Strength a strained new marriage. The the effectiveness of their translation in Chronicles of Narnia, though they are children’s fiction addressing one of the earliest and most and do not express an adult experience of gender, important issues in God’s self-revela- reflect the great conversation in unobtrusive ways, not the least of which is the principle of unity-in- tion—“man,” a radical unity, yet created diversity inherent in Narnia. And Till We Have Faces, as male and female. In retaining the lan- Lewis’s last novel written after he was married and in guage of “man,” other reliable translations which the marriage of Psyche and Cupid draws all the of the Bible have not bowed to modern principal characters under its benevolent influence, is grounded in gender. For Lewis, gender reflected social and linguistic conventions; rather, something of the Trinity and was one expression of in keeping the dynamic of gender rela- the imago dei in us. tions in their language they have retained one of the central tensions of nature and the supernatural—unity in diversity. Such is man because such is God. In regard to the ultimate realities to which gender points, the TNIV is simply out of step and inaccurate.

1 C. S. Lewis, The Magician’s Nephew (New York: Harper Collins, 1994), 146 and 154. 2 Homer Odyssey 3, 4. 3 John Milton, Paradise Lost, ed. Merritt Y. Hughes (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2003), 4.610–780. 4 Ibid., 9.342–75, 816–33. 5 Ibid., 12.648. 55 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 56-65 Choosing a Translation of the Bible

Russell T. Fuller Associate Professor of Old Testament Interpretation The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

A generation or two ago, choosing almost a classic. But I was not a translation of the Bible was more a prepared for the heroic figure matter of choosing the color of the cover to whom I reported. With than choosing the version. Virtually, one arm gone, and half a leg there was only one version—the King missing, with his red beard James Version. It was the only Bible that glittering in the sunlight, most people knew. It was the English the jaunty rake of his cocked translation of the Bible. It influenced hat and the oratorical bril- the church, the society, and the English liance of his resonant voice, language itself. Indeed, the church and his impact was overwhelm- society thrived under it. The King James ing. He seemed almost to Version blessed the people of God for be the reincarnation of the centuries. legendary figure of battle and But language changes. No language, romance, Henry of Navarre. except a dead one, is static. A cursory And he was just as good as reading of English prose of a century ago he looked.1 demonstrates this. Take, for example, the description by Douglas MacArthur, the Of course, this prose is still well great American general educated in the understood today, but the vocabulary, nineteenth century, of the World War I the idioms, the turn of phrases have a French general, Henri Gouraud: different ring to them, the sound of a bygone Victorian era. But go back further His Algerian exploits had in time, to the time of the King James won him the soubriquet of le Bible. The language sounds even stranger lion d’Afrique, and his Gal- to our ears, almost foreign. Yet, with some lipoli campaign had become study and a very good dictionary, even 56 FALL 2005

that Early Modern English prose may view of Scripture, and (3)that—especially be understood. for our day—follows the natural changes But all translations, including the of modern idiom, but does not follow King James Version, seek to put the word unnatural language changes of political of God in the language of the people. In movements or agendas. fact, God inspired the authors of the New Testament to write in the Greek dialect Choose a translation that of the common (Koine) people, not in the Greek dialect of the academy (Attic). translates faithfully and ac- So it should be with modern translations. curately the meaning of the Translators should put the word of God, original Hebrew and Greek which is the power of God unto salvation, without unnecessary inter- into the language of the common man that he might know God and what God pretation A translation ought to translate. requires of him. Hence, there is a real This is obvious, to be sure, but what is a need for modern translations—perhaps translation? The word “translate” denotes not so many modern translations—but bearing or transferring the meaning of nonetheless, there is a need, especially one language to another language. This in our biblically and generally illiterate transference of meaning from one lan- times. guage to another may take many forms. Although the King James Version At one extreme, one may woodenly can no longer be widely used because transfer the grammar and idiom of one English has changed, the translation language to another without actually principles of the King James Version transferring any meaning. On the other have not changed nor have become extreme, one may ignore the grammar obsolete. Indeed, it was those principles and idiom and may simply interpret or that blessed generations. Of course, the paraphrase the meaning of one language translators of the King James Version to the other. This will certainly transfer did not invent them. From the King meaning, but is this the proper meaning? James Version to Luther’s translation, Clearly a middle course is needed. from Jerome’s Vulgate to parts of the Many today choose paraphrases Septuagint, these principles—to one for their translation of Scripture, ﬁnd- degree or another—have been followed. ing them easier to understand, especially This is true even from the days of King for children. In fact, they are easier to James to our modern times. In selecting understand because they are not actually a modern translation, therefore, for public translations, but interpretations, mini- and private worship for Christians and commentaries on the Scriptures. As such, for the common man who does not know they have their place, and they can cer- the Lord, choose a modern translation tainly be helpful. Moreover, paraphrases that follows these proven and venerable are not just recent inventions with the principles that have blessed the church Living Bible, but some ancient versions, for centuries. Choose a translation such as the Targums and the Septuagint, then (1) that translates faithfully and are also paraphrastic in many places. Also accurately the meaning of the original modern versions such as the NIV try to Hebrew and Greek without unnecessary follow a middle course between a para- interpretation, (2) that reﬂects a high phrase and a more “literal” translation. 57 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Again, these also have their place and through the Masoretic tradition. These they can be helpful, but they take many issues do require interpretation on occa- liberties in interpreting the text. They are sion, but again, God has not left us to our more like a paraphrase in this aspect. own devises. Though translations require But do we simply trust the inter- some interpretation, it should be kept to pretation of the translators? For general a minimum. conversation or understanding, this may Keeping interpretation to a mini- be acceptable, but for Scripture, and for mum, a translator should represent the other writings that demand greater preci- Hebrew and Greek to allow the reader sion, such as law, a translation closer to the privilege and responsibility to inter- the phrasing of the original is helpful, and pret the text. Too often Sunday School indeed necessary. While interpretations classes are left confused because their and paraphrases are helpful, translating “translations” read differently. Actually, the grammar and idiom of Scripture to of course, their translations are interpre- allow the reader to have a sense of the tations that differ. Many wonder how wording of Scripture and to interpret it translations can differ so widely. Some for himself is more than helpful—it is wonder just how accurate their English essential. translations are. For example, 1 Thess 4:4 All translations, of course, require reads in part, “that each might know how some interpretation. Issues of context, to possess his own vessel.” The TNIV both grammatical and historical, and interprets “his own vessel” as “your own authorial intent must enter into any body.” To be sure, the TNIV emasculates translation. Sometimes a grammatical the gender (and changes the person from construction may allow multiple under- third to second) with “his own” becoming standings. In such cases, a translator must “your own,” which does not reflect the decide which rendering is appropriate, Greek, but it also interprets “vessel” as based on his judgment and interpreta- “body.” The New American Bible (NAB), tion. With the original texts of the Bible, however, has a different interpretation: the situation is still more complicated. “that each of you know how to acquire a The Greek New Testament is without wife for himself.” Here “vessel” is inter- punctuation. The translator must supply preted as “wife.” Paul, of course, could this, based on his understanding of the have written “body” or “wife,” but instead passage. This does not mean, however, he wrote “vessel.” Perhaps, it is better to that the language is at the mercy of the translate the Greek as intended by the translator to make what he will of the human and divine author and leave in- passage through the punctuation. The terpretation to the reader. The situation Greek language with its intricate sub- is even more serious when the translator ordination often makes the punctuation botches an interpretation. In Exod 21:22, clear, with issues of parentheses being the the TNIV interprets the passage, “If peo- most difficult. Even more complicated ple are fighting and a pregnant woman than Greek, Hebrew, also written without is hit and gives birth prematurely.” This punctuation, is often written without interpretation of Exod 21:22 as a prema- vowels. Furthermore, Hebrew does not ture birth is certainly wrong.2 The TNIV, have the subtle subordination of Greek. to be fair, has the proper interpretation Yet, God has preserved the understand- in the footnote, but the TNIV does not ing of the vowels and the punctuation always put an alternative interpretation 58 FALL 2005

or the correct interpretation in a foot- Choose a translation that note. Again, translate the passage to let reflects a high view of the reader interpret. Do not prejudice or mislead the reader with interpretational Scripture blunders. Although a translator must inter- A similar principle applies to pret with restraint and caution, a transla- emending the text. A translator should tor does not come to the text theologi- not change or “correct” the text except in cally neutral. Even if without theological a very few cases, such as obvious copyist training, a translator has certain presup- mistakes. For instance, the TNIV in Ps positions, consciously or unconsciously, 12:6 emends the Hebrew text, which when he comes to a text. If a translator, reads, “The words of the Lord are pure for instance, comes to the Bible believ- words, (like) silver refined in the furnace ing that it is like any other book, merely of the earth, refined seven times,” to “And a human product, the result of human the words of the Lord are flawless, like ingenuity, then he does not properly un- silver purified in a crucible, like gold re- derstand the true nature of the book. His fined seven times,”3 without sufficient translation will err. Not necessarily often, textual justification to satisfy their no- but yet too often. His translation will miss tions of how the text should read and of the unity of the divine mind behind the how the biblical parallelism should be. Scriptures. It will fail to appreciate the In a footnote, the TNIV instructs the divine wisdom of the Scriptures. It will reader that their correction of the text lack the divine pathos of the Scriptures. is the “probable reading of the original In short, the translation will be sterile, Hebrew text.” The Committee on Bible with unnecessary errors and blunders. Translation of the TNIV in their “A Worse yet, some translators come to the Word to the Reader,” the preface to the Bible with a negative bias, with an agenda TNIV, states that such emendations “are to subvert the clear teachings of the Bible. usually indicated in the textual notes.”4 The Revised Standard Version (RSV), for Of course, all emendations should be instance, often shows this bias. In Rom noted and perhaps emphasized by italics. 9:5, the RSV distorts the syntax to shun Again, to be fair, the TNIV is not alone. Paul’s assertion of Christ’s deity: “to them Many conservative translations take too belong the patriarchs, and of their race, many liberties in “correcting” the text. The according to the flesh, is the Christ. God translator, again, must restrain himself who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.” and let the text speak for itself. The text The RSV renders the last part of the verse just may be correct. as an independent sentence, a doxology. As much as possible, a translation Such a rendering, while imaginative, is forced—indeed, forced by a theologi- should reflect the text as it is and the 5 grammatical structure to allow the reader cal bias. Perhaps because of the severe to interpret the text when possible, allow- criticism that the RSV received over this ing other study aids to assist in interpre- unfortunate rendering, the New Revised tation. A translator should restrain the Standard Version (NRSV) emends the urge and resist the temptation to emend translation of its forbearer to the ap- or to interpret the text for the reader. propriate rendering, “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is 59 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” justification, without sound contextual This correction, however, is isolated. The reasons, indeed without reason itself, the NRSV, unfortunately, follows the same REB and the NAB cut Zech 4:1–3 and bias against the word of God as its fore- paste it after Zech 4:10. This is not an runner, the RSV. Moreover, the NRSV isolated example. The REB does this sev- adds a layer of gender-inclusive language eral times as do other translations of this to its bias. Other translations with the mindset. The cut-and-paste Bible, how- same bias, such as the Revised English ever, is the New English Bible (NEB), Bible (REB) and the NAB, still refuse the forerunner of the REB. A cursory to surrender to the correct translation of reading of the footnotes shows that the Rom 9:5, as the NRSV has. NEB rearranges the text at will, often Modern translations may also show mixing textual comments like “transpose” their negative bias towards Scripture by and “probable reading” with “corrupt” stretching the syntax of the biblical text and “Hebrew unintelligible.” After read- to conform with Babylonian texts, which ing the textual notes of the NEB, one the Hebrews presumably borrowed. For wonders how the Old Testament could example, the REB and NAB translate have ever been translated or interpreted Gen 1:1 as a temporal clause to agree with such pervasive “corruptions” in the with the beginning of the Babylonian text. Recently, such translations have creation account, Enuma Elish, which moved away from the excesses of the begins with a temporal clause. This is NEB—at least somewhat—returning to against the natural rendering of the a resemblance of sanity in dealing with syntax and the Masoretic understanding the text. of the verse.6 Moreover, it is against the Instead of following such a destruc- New Testament understanding of the tive philosophy against the Scripture, verse as John 1:1 and Heb 11:3 probably both in understanding it and in translat- indicate. In another example, the NRSV, ing it, a translator must have proper views REB, NAB, and the New Jerusalem Bible about the Scriptures. He must see them (NJB) begin a new paragraph within Gen as a supernatural product and not just as 2:4 to make the following account, which a natural or human product. Although they assume to be a second creation ac- the Scriptures are the product of many count consistent with a naturalistic ap- men writing over many centuries, ulti- proach to Scripture, start with a temporal mately they reflect the thinking of one clause for the same reason as Gen 1:1. mind—one divine mind. As such, they Again, the Masoretic understanding, possess a unity of thought and instruc- which sees a new paragraph beginning tion, not a collection of inconsistent and after Gen 2:3 but not within verse four, contradictory “texts.” Furthermore, they contradicts these modern translations possess a wisdom and a teaching worthy and their biases.7 Sad to say, examples like of their infinitely wise Author. Hence, these can be multiplied many times. the translator should love, cherish, and Perhaps the worst example of this gladly receive the Scriptures—he should pernicious attitude towards Scripture oc- appreciate the things of the Spirit of curs when translations rearrange the word God (1 Cor 2:12–15). In short, he must of God to suit their own opinion of how see the Scriptures as the very word of the text should read. This is emendation God. This principle supplies the overall gone mad. Without the slightest textual context or philosophy of the transla- 60 FALL 2005

tion. If a translator misunderstands the theology into the text, so he should also nature of the work that he translates, resist following or conforming to po- he will almost certainly mistranslate it. litical movements. Political movements If he translates a comedy as a tragedy, a and issues, to be sure, have impacted joke as a law, or a comic strip as a sober the interpretation and translation of historical account, the translation, though Scripture. The King James Version is the perhaps grammatically correct, will fall result of a political compromise, at least wide of the mark. A translator, therefore, somewhat, between King James and the must come to the text with an orthodox Puritans.8 This compromise did not af- understanding of Scripture. fect the translation, but only the produc- This does not imply, of course, tion of the translation. The existence of that orthodoxy must drive translation; some inordinately large commentaries in on the contrary, proper translation and America on the book Philemon before interpretation must drive orthodoxy. A 1861 seems odd until one realizes the translator must translate Scripture faith- political issue of that time—slavery. The fully, seeking to please its Author, not to translation of Exod 21:22 was non-con- please a theological point of view. Hence, troversial in America until 1973, the year as a translator must restrain the urge to of Roe v. Wade. When political passions interpret individual verses and passages, run high on any issue, sometimes the is- so he must restrain himself, as much as sue has controlled biblical interpretation. possible, from inserting his own theolog- At other times, biblical interpretation has ical views or agendas into a translation. been allowed to speak for itself concern- He must allow the translation, or actually ing the issue. In past times, translators the word of God, to speak for itself and and interpreters attempted to let the allow the reader to interpret its teachings Bible speak for itself without allowing and to develop its theology. political considerations to override or Hence, although a translator can- to control the translation or interpreta- not approach the Scriptures theologically tion of Scripture. This is not to say that neutral, a translator must ﬁrst believe they have always been successful, but the God and his word, then he must translate attempt is honorable and noble. Most the Scriptures as accurately and as hon- Christians, if not all, recognize this. estly as is humanly possible, allowing the But times are changing. Now some Scriptures to speak for themselves. believe that the translator should adjust his work to avoid offending modern Choose a translation that fol- sensibilities. The Committee on Bible Translation for the NIVI—the New lows natural language International Version: Inclusive Lan- changes of modern idiom, guage Edition (the predecessor to the but does not follow the un- TNIV)—stated in its policy on gender- natural language changes of inclusive language that political movements or Authors of Biblical books, agendas even while writing Scripture As a translator should restrain the inspired by the Holy Spirit, urge and resist the temptation to emend unconsciously reflected in or to interpret the text or to insert his many ways, the particular 61 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

cultures in which they wrote. translation. Hence in the manner in Which brings us to the gender-in- which they articulate the clusive language debate. For non-evan- Word of God, they sometimes gelical interpreters and for translators offend modern sensibilities. At of the NRSV and the REB, gender-in- such times, translators can clusive language is fully embraced. For and may use non-offending evangelicals, on the other hand, the issue renderings so as not to hinder is hotly contested, with some accepting the message of the Spirit.9 and others rejecting gender-inclusive language. This principle opens a Pandora’s The gender-inclusive language box for the translator. If the writers of debate has both political and linguistic Scripture, inspired by the Spirit, write dimensions, with proponents and op- things offensive to modern sensibilities, ponents of gender-inclusive language who is the translator to correct the words agreeing on one point: Secular feminism of the Spirit so as not to hinder the mes- is the source and the driving force behind sage of the Spirit? Should translators the gender-inclusive language. D. A. Car- commission polls, gather focus groups, or son, a proponent, states, “I acknowledge interview various special interest groups that much of the demand of reform of to determine whose sensibilities are of- the English language on this point is fended? Perhaps the Spirit intended to from active feminists. Much of the push offend modern sensibilities. But there is for change is ideologically driven. I don’t more. The next principle declares, think all of it is, but certainly much of it is.”11 Similarly, Bruce Waltke, another The patriarchalism (like other proponent, says, “Although I resent it, the social patterns) of the ancient English language has been impacted by cultures in which the Biblical secular (non-biblical) feminism and many books were composed is per- students today are trained to hear ‘man’ vasively reflected in forms of and ‘he’ and their equivalents as referring expression that appear, in the only to males, excluding females.”12 modern context, to deny the But the agreement ends there. common human dignity of all Carson goes on to indicate, as I read hearers and readers. For these him, that while he has disagreements forms, alternative modes of with the feminist movement, he agrees expression can and may by with them concerning gender-inclusive used, though care must be language—“One must try to assess taken not to distort the intent where, in the light of Scripture, feminist of the original text.10 agendas make telling points, where their demands make little difference (from a Again, permission is granted to biblical point of view), and where they adjust translations if “forms of expres- seem to fly in the face of Scripture.”13 sion appear, in the modern context, to Indeed, though an opponent of gender- deny the common human dignity of all inclusive language, I agree with Carson hearers and readers.” Such subjective and that feminism may well “make telling arbitrary principles are a license to insert points” on issues, such as pornography, all sorts of modern agendas into Bible for example. But they do not “make tell- 62 FALL 2005

ing points” on gender-inclusive language. cree, or just promote, that the term “Jew” They instead attempt to politicize speech no longer be used, but instead an insult- and thought, as part of our current culture ing slur be used. The language change wars, against the traditional culture of may be accepted by nearly all, it may the West and its source, the Scriptures. even be embraced by all, but the Chris- Listen to Bruce Metzger, for instance, tians of that society, including Christian writing for the Committee of the NRSV, translators, must resist such language “During the almost half a century since changes. Certainly language changes, but the publication of the RSV, many in the the motivations for that change must be churches have become sensitive to the considered. Natural changes in languages danger of linguistic sexism arising from are benign. Changes like the dropping the inherent bias of the English language of case endings, the elimination of rare towards the masculine gender, a bias forms, the obsolescence of certain words that in the case of the Bible has often and idioms, and the adding of new words restricted or obscured the meaning of and idiom are common and natural. The the original text.”14 Of course, the writers movement towards gender-inclusive of Scripture and the Writer of Scripture language, however, is clearly an unnatural may be (and have been) charged with change in the language. Such changes possessing a similar “linguistic sexism must be viewed with extreme caution. and bias.” Listen to the preface of the This unnatural change in the language NIVI: “It is often appropriate to mute is politically driven, as Carson and other the patriarchalism of the culture of the evangelicals acknowledge. Language has biblical writers through gender-inclusive now become a target to deconstruct the language.”15 The biblical writers, however, Bible and society, a tool for speech codes never condemn patriarchal culture per se, on college campuses, an issue to control and throughout the Scriptures, the Bible speech and thought through law in Eu- teaches a male headship that implies, at rope and Canada. This ideology views the least to some degree, a patriarchal culture. Bible as hate-speech, sexist, homophobic, Even if “their demands make little dif- and bigoted in thought and in expression. ference (from a biblical point of view),” While translations should reflect natural translators of the word of God must not changes in a language, they should not consider or accept the demands of the reflect unnatural changes, forced on the feminists, or for that matter, the demands language through political and ideologi- of any group. Their demands, however, do cal motivations. make a difference—they politicize the For many evangelical proponents of word of God. gender-inclusive language the issue is not The disagreement goes even deeper. the motivations for the language change, Carson writes, “translations [should] but whether the language change actually change as the receptor languages change, distorts the word of God. Again, Carson regardless of the motivations that some writes, “Where the line must be drawn entertain for those changes.”16 On the con- is where a translation is domesticating trary, we must, in the strongest terms, re- God’s Word such that the truth of Scrip- ject language changes, both in the culture ture is distorted.”17 Obviously, for Carson generally and in the Bible specifically, and other proponents, gender-inclusive that have improper motivations. Suppose language does not distort Scripture. But a society like Nazi Germany were to de- for opponents it certainly does distort 63 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Scripture. Much has been written about agendas to influence their work. particular verses of the TNIV, whether 18 they distort Scripture or not. But in the Conclusion larger context and culture of Scripture, There are many Bibles to choose gender-inclusive language clearly distorts from today. I recommend (1) those that Scripture by giving the reader the mistranslate, yet do not interpret—when taken idea that the Scriptures themselves possible—for the reader; (2) those that employ gender-inclusive language, thus reflect a high view of Scripture, yet do giving the mistaken impression that the not insert their own theological views; Bible supports such language. More- and (3) those that follow the natural over, such language, to use the words changes of modern idiom, yet do not of the NIVI, “mutes the patriarchalism follow the unnatural language changes of the culture of the biblical writers.” of modern agendas and ideology. I also Gender-inclusive language not only recommend translations that reject mutes the culture of the biblical writers, principles that approve modifications in but it distorts it, leaving the mistaken translations so as not to offend modern impression that the biblical culture was sensibilities. This means, of course, that not so patriarchal after all and that the I recommend Bibles with a translation writers of Scripture and the speakers philosophy similar to the New American within Scripture were sensitive, indeed Standard Bible and others like it. Other supportive, of gender-inclusive language translations that are more paraphrastic and perhaps even of other aspects of that may be used with profit, but use them ideology. Gender-inclusive translations, as interpretations or commentaries. This accepting an unnatural language change also means, of course, that I reject the of political ideology, inject the deadly vi- TNIV as a politicized work. ruses of the modern culture wars directly The English language changes. into Scripture. Such translations present And like most languages, it changes a view of biblical culture and expression, slowly and naturally. The language of a both anachronistic and distorted. hundred years ago is still clear and well Because gender-inclusive language understood, with perhaps some idioms or is an unnatural language change, the lin- grammatical forms becoming obsolete. In guistic and political dimensions cannot the last twenty-five years the language be separated. Certainly, the translation change is slight, except in one area—lan- and the interpretation of the Bible have guage has become politicized. Let us not been influenced through the centuries allow the translation and interpretation by many factors, including political and of the Bible to become politicized as well. theological factors, but gender-inclusive Let us, therefore, allow the Bible to speak translations overtly politicize Scripture in clearly and boldly from its own culture, a manner unparalleled in history. Biblical time, and agenda, and let all others read translation and interpretation, while they and consider whether their culture, time, must speak to political and social issues and agenda honors God and his word, where applicable, must stay above po- or not. liticization. Translators and interpreters must avoid many temptations, incuding 1 Douglas MacArthur, Reminiscences (New York: Mc- reading their own interpretations or the- Graw-Hill, 1964), 57. 2 Russell Fuller, “Exodus 21:22: The Miscarriage ology into the text and allowing political Interpretation and the Personhood of the Fetus,” 64 FALL 2005

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 2 change, the changes (I shall argue) are here. If that (1994): 169–184. is the case, this is the language that, increasingly, we 3 The italics highlight the diﬀerent renderings of the have to work with, even if we may not approve all the passage. reasons that have brought these changes about (even 4 Holy Bible: Today’s New International Version (Grand as some did not appreciate the reasons for dropping Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), x (italics added). ‘thou’ and thy’). In short, whatever the reasons for the 5 See William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, Romans changes in the English language now taking place, (The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: the translator’s job is always the same: translate the T&T Clark, 1903), 233–238. Compare a similar opin- Word of God into the current language” (Debate, 188 ion against the deity of Christ by the majority of the [italics in original]). I completely disagree with Car- Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies’ son about the translator’s job. The translator of God’s Greek New Testament. B. Metzger summarizes the word should translate the Scriptures faithfully not just majority opinion for punctuating Rom 9:5 consistent into the target language (English), but also from the with the RSV, “In fact, on the basis of the general source language (Hebrew and Greek). The translator tenor of his (Paul’s) theology it was considered tanta- is not a politician pandering to the sensitivities and mount to impossible that Paul would have expressed demands of special interest groups. The dropping of Christ’s greatness by calling him God blessed for “thou” and “thy” are natural language changes; gender- ever” (Bruce Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on inclusive language unnaturally changes the language the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., [Stuttgart: United to sterilize the “sexist,” “patriarchal” English language Bible Society, 1994], 461). Instead of allowing their and the biblical text. As language naturally changes, theology to inform their understanding of the Paul’s most allow the old and the new language to continue writings, perhaps the majority of the Committee together until the old language dies of natural causes. should have allowed Paul’s writing to inform their If anyone believes that gender-inclusive language is theology. Then the impossible may just become pos- a natural change, I challenge them to go to any re- sible, as Yogi Berra once said, “They said it couldn’t education camp found in the English departments, be done—but that does not always work.” feminist studies departments, and many seminaries 6 E. J. Young, Studies in Genesis One (Philadelphia: in North America. There, the sensitivities go one way. P&R, 1964), 1–14. There, the sinner dies quickly—of unnatural causes for 7 In the other ten occurrences of this construction, using unapproved language—if he (and I mean he) is the NAB never begins a paragraph within the verse; lucky. That same freedom of thought and speech will the NRSV and the REB begin a new paragraph be for all of us soon. This language change is forced within the verse once—I believe erroneously—in and enforced—naturally, of course. Gen 37:2. 17 Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence,” 8 Alister E. McGrath, In the Beginning (New York: 84. Doubleday, 2001), 130–71. 18 For particulars of the linguistic arguments, see the 9 Quoted in D. A. Carson, The Inclusive-Language De- excellent work of Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. bate (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 41 (italics added). Grudem, The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible Carson indicates that, at the time of writing, the CBT Controversy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004), was “preparing a revised set of guidelines”(39). which opposes gender-inclusive language. For pro- 10 Ibid. ponents of gender-inclusive language, see Carson, 11 D. A. Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence Debate; and Mark Strauss, Distorting Scripture? The in Bible Translation—and Others Limits, Too” in The Challenge of Bible Translation and Gender Accuracy Challenge of Bible Translation, ed. Glen G. Scorgie, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998). Mark L. Strauss, and Steven M. Voth (Grand Rap- ids: Zondervan, 2003), 83. See also, Carson, Debate, 187–189. 12 Bruce Waltke, “Personal Reﬂections on the TNIV,” a paper distributed by Zondervan, September 4, 2002. 13 Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence,” 84–85. 14 Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), xvii. 15 Holy Bible: New International Version Inclusive (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001), vii. Carson’s understanding(s) of this statement is (are) curious and unconvincing. See Carson, Debate, 27-28. 16 Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence,” 84 (italics in original). In the same vein, Carson writes, “Regardless of the source of the pressure for linguistic 65 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood JBMW 10/2 (Fall 2005) 66-74 Annotated Bibliography for Gender Related Books in 2004

Compiled and Annotated by Rob Lister Contributing Editor, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Louisville, Kentucky

In this issue of the journal we Complementarian profile some of the most significant gen- Chanski, Mark. Manly Dominion der-related books from 2004. Here is a in a Passive-Purple-Four-Ball World. brief reminder about the categories we Merrick, NY: Calvary Press, 2004. are using and our intent in using them. Chanski argues that far too many Complementarian designates an author men today are like the four-ball in bil- who recognizes the full personal equality lards—passive and knocked around of the sexes, coupled with an acknowl- by their environment. By contrast, he edgment of role distinctions in the home contends that biblical manliness is to and church. Egalitarian classifies evan- be marked not by passivity but by the gelicals who see undifferentiated equality exercise of assertive leadership. In devel- (i.e., they see no scriptural warrant for oping this concept of “manly dominion,” affirming male headship in the home or Chanski’s book is marked by its breadth the church). Under the Non-Evangeli- of biblical analysis and application to cal heading, we have classified important such significant areas of life as career secular works and books that address the choice, decision-making, churchmanship, subject of biblical gender issues from a and child raising. religious, albeit, non-evangelical point of view. This category also serves as our Clarkson, Sally. The Ministry of classification for liberal scholars wanting Motherhood: Following Christ’s Example to retain some sort of Christian identity. in Reaching the Hearts of Our Children. Finally, under the Undeclared heading, Colorado Springs: WaterBrook, 2004. we have listed those books that do not Given her own experience with give sufficient indication of their fun- the hectic realities of a mother’s world, damental stance for us to classify them Clarkson knows how quickly even neces- more specifically. sary daily tasks can eat up the hours of the 66 FALL 2005

day, leaving a mom to feel that, at best, Who Pleases God (Moody, 2003), Ennis she has only just survived the day. As a and Tatlock—both professors of Home result, in The Ministry of Motherhood—a Economics at The Master’s College—use companion to her earlier volume The the principles of Titus 2:3–5 to establish Mission of Motherhood—Clarkson has biblical priorities for Christian women mapped out a very intentional plan for that will guide them in the building mothers to use in strategically weaving of their homes. The authors combine the discipleship of their children into all sound reasoning from Scripture with an the other facets of a given day. She writes abundance of practical wisdom as they in very congenial manner, employing a cover topics ranging from embracing variety of personal anecdotes to illustrate submission to managing motherhood to her points. In all of this, it is clear that cultivating a hostess’s heart and dressing Clarkson desires to use everyday reali- with discernment. ties as a training ground, in the lives of children, for growing Christian charac- Grudem, Wayne. Evangelical ter and building a Christian worldview, Feminism and Biblical Truth: An Analysis much in the fashion that Deuteronomy of More Than 100 Disputed Questions. 6 instructs us. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004. This resource is unsurpassed for its Dobson, James. Marriage Under value in responding to the key claims of Fire. Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2004. evangelical feminism, and in my judg- Dobson has penned an eloquent ment that makes it an essential compan- plea for the defense of the institution of ion of Recovering Biblical Manhood and marriage against the current efforts to Womanhood (still the definitive statement legalize homosexual “marriage.” After of the complementarian view). Whereas, tracking some of the political and legal RBMW established the major contours steps that have brought us to the current of complementarianism, this new volume situation, he addresses the consequences is noteworthy for the way it focuses in that will result—both for individual on critiquing the egalitarian view, as families and for society as a whole—if well as for the updated scholarship it homosexual activists win the day. In the provides. Herein, Grudem answers over concluding chapter Dobson articulates one hundred egalitarian arguments that his concern for the necessity of a Federal range from matters of biblical exegesis Marriage Amendment (FMA). Appen- and theology, to issues of hermeneutical dices address common questions about method, to areas of application. In addi- “gay marriage,” provide suggestions for tion to being a wonderful analysis of the supporting the FMA, and suggest a list issues at hand, Grudem’s book exhibits of organizations and resources that will several strengths that commend it to a be of benefit to the reader in addressing wide readership. First, while provid- this issue. ing an example of first-rate scholarship, EFBT reads very easily, which will endear Ennis, Pat and Lisa Tatlock. the volume to pastors and lay leaders as Designing a Lifestyle That Pleases God. well as scholars. The book also has the Chicago: Moody, 2004. advantage of treating each question in a In this companion volume to succinct manner. So, if a reader wants an their earlier book Becoming a Woman analysis of a particular claim he or she 67 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

can look it up in the very thorough and Köstenberger, Andreas J., with well-organized table of contents, go right David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and to topic in question, and read Grudem’s Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Founda- analysis of it, usually in a matter of just tion. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004. a few pages. This is perhaps the most com- prehensive volume on its theme. The Heimbach, Daniel R. True Sexual authors plumb the depths of scriptural Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards teaching and then apply that teaching for a Culture in Crisis. Wheaton: Cross- to a whole range of issues (e.g., divorce, way, 2004. contraception, singleness, etc.) facing This book may well be the best one contemporary families. Specific roles for volume treatment of Christian sexual fathers, mothers, and children are clearly ethics available. It is both thorough as to conveyed. The book comes complete its range of subject matter and insightful with a study guide, enhancing its value as to its analysis. In section one, Heim- for use in group discussions. The bibli- bach surveys how our culture came to ography of resources for additional study the point of such sexual chaos. Then he is also extremely valuable. extensively portrays the superior path of biblical sexual morality. Contained Lutzer, Erwin W. The Truth About herein, is a very nice statement of seven Same-Sex Marriage. Chicago: Moody, positive principles that distinguish bibli- 2004. cal sexual morality. In the third section, Lutzer pleads for the church to he turns to provide an analysis of lead- resist the advancing agenda of same-sex ing “counterfeit” views of sexual moral- “marriage,” while also insisting that the ity. Then, in the last section, Heimbach church reach out to the homosexual analyzes where the current trajectory community with compassion. He opens might lead. the book by diagnosing how homosexual activists have been able to exercise such Kennedy, D. James, and Jerry a strategic influence over the culture so Newcombe. What’s Wrong with Same- as to bring us to the current cultural Sex Marriage? Wheaton: Crossway, moment. Then, he shows how the le- 2004. galization of same-sex marriage will, in Kennedy and Newcombe make effect, destroy the institution of marriage, the case for resisting the advancing ef- thereby harming children and undermin- forts to legalize same-sex “marriage.” ing the very fabric of society. In all of In their defense of traditional marriage, this, Lutzer displays the pastoral wisdom the authors unmask the real reason that required to stand unapologetically for homosexual activists are pushing for the truth of Scripture in the midst of a same-sex marriage: not a desire to enjoy hostile culture, while also demonstrating marriage, but to destroy it and force great compassion for and outreach to widespread acceptance of the homosexual homosexuals—many of whom intuitively lifestyle on everyone else. They present a sense the wrongness of their behavior or two pronged strategy for a response: (1) are likely to have had traumatic experi- conversion of homosexuals who want to ences as children. change and (2) an aggressive push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. 68 FALL 2005

Mahaney, C. J. Sex, Romance, and marital status may be. McCulley also the Glory of God. Wheaton: Crossway, encourages her readers to make the most 2004. of the opportunities for ministry unique Mahaney’s discussion of sexual to singles. intimacy in marriage is superb. He correctly recognizes the larger purpose of Moore, Doreen. Good Christians, marriage in pointing to the relationship Good Husbands? Leaving a Legacy in between Christ and his church. He also Marriage and Ministry. Ross-shire, understands that passion in the bedroom Scotland: Christian Focus, 2004. is not isolated and unrelated to the Moore provides a well-researched larger reality of the marriage relationship. account of the efforts to balance ministry Consequently, Mahaney’s guiding prin- and marriage by John Wesley, George ciple for husbands is to lead their wives Whitefield, and Jonathan Edwards. lovingly in this area by touching their All of this is undertaken not just as an hearts and minds before touching their interesting historical study, even though bodies. Beginning from this principle, it would be of interest for that reason Mahaney proceeds to blend insights from alone. Instead, all of Moore’s historical the Song of Solomon with advice and analysis builds toward her concluding applications from his own observations chapter in which she makes use of her and experience about how a husband can historical observations along with biblical truly romance his wife in various dimen- guidance in order to outline an approach sions of their relationship. All of this, of to balancing marriage and ministry for course, feeds into (and, in turn, benefits contemporary readers. Here, she distills from) the unabashed pleasure of intense thirteen well-conceived principles that sexual joy between a husband and wife make for one of the most thoughtful and bonded together by covenant love. In my well-rounded approaches to this topic own estimation, every Christian husband that I have seen. should read this book. Patterson, Dorothy Kelley, and McCulley, Carolyn. Did I Kiss Armour Patterson. Parents in Ministry: Marriage Goodbye? Trusting God With Training up a Child While Answering the a Hope Deferred. Wheaton: Crossway, Call. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004. 2004. In this very thoughtful volume, Dorothy and Armour Patterson— McCulley offers encouragement to single wife and son, respectively, of South- women, by helping them see their single- western Baptist Theological Seminary ness through a God-centered lens. Laced president Paige Patterson—provide an throughout with solid Bible exposition excellent field-manual for parents faced (especially framed around Proverbs with the unique challenges of raising 31), McCulley does not skirt the real children while serving in vocational frustrations and struggles of singleness. ministry. Their combined experience as a Instead, treating those issues head-on, mother and son trying to conduct minis- she continually points her readers to the try and home life amidst the tumultuous grace and wisdom of God. She main- years of the conservative resurgence in tains that growth in godly femininity is the Southern Baptist Convention, gives a biblical objective no matter what one’s the Pattersons an invaluable perspective 69 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

from which to address this issue. Chapter second half of The TNIV and the Gender- topics range from the adolescent years, to Neutral Bible Controversy retains all of the importance of affirming the gender the material from the previous volume distinctives of sons and daughters, to a by Poythress and Grudem. Combining discussion of Christian virtues. these two components in one book allows the authors to present, in one place, the Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Lib- theoretical arguments against gender- erating Christianity from its Cultural neutral Bible translation, along with the Captivity. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004. focused application of these arguments This is a book about the importance to the translation practice and policy of of the Christian worldview and Christian the TNIV. For a more detailed outline of cultural engagement. Though it is not the key arguments advanced by Poythress primarily devoted to a consideration of and Grudem in their previous volume, gender issues, Pearcey’s book does devote readers may wish to peruse my lengthier one fine chapter to that end. As with the review of the earlier edition (see JBMW other chapters in the book, this particular 6, no. 1 [2001]: 31–34). In any case, it chapter (entitled “How Women Started remains my judgment that Poythress the Culture War”) is a well-documented and Grudem have provided us with the and extremely insightful piece of cultural most thorough and persuasive approach analysis. Beginning with the Industrial to the hotly debated issue of translating Revolution, Pearcey deftly analyzes how gendered language in Scripture. The the public/private dichotomy has infil- material they have compiled in response trated and reshaped the ordering of home to the TNIV offers a timely response that life as well as cultural understandings of sustains and extends the wisdom of their manhood and womanhood. earlier observations.

Poythress, Vern S., and Wayne Stanton, Glenn T., and Bill Maier. A. Grudem. The TNIV and the Gender- Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Neutral Bible Controversy. Nashville: Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting. Broadman & Holman, 2004. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. This is an update of the authors’ The Marriage on Trial is a social-science Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Mut- field-manual for the defense of marriage ing the Masculinity of God’s Words, which against the onslaught of the homosexual was also published by Broadman & Hol- agenda. The book is arranged in a ques- man in 2000. In the fall of 2002, JBMW tion and answer format in order to pro- devoted its fall issue (vol. 7, no. 2) to vide sound responses to key questions responding to the recently released TNIV about same-sex marriage. In the course New Testament and the arguments made of critiquing the arguments for same- by its advocates. The contents of that sex marriage, the authors also build the journal now appear as chapters 1–6 of positive case for the value of traditional The TNIV and the Gender-Neutral Bible monogamous marriage, which they term Controversy. These chapters address “natural marriage.” specific texts and categories of mistakes found in the TNIV New Testament, and they offer a response to key rebuttals from major proponents of the TNIV. The 70 FALL 2005

Egalitarian “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Johnson, Alan F. 1 Corinthians. Trinity” in Recovering Biblical Manhood IVP New Testament Commentary and Womanhood, 124–39. (2) Concern- Series. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, ing Johnson’s specific interpretation of 1 2004. Cor 14:34–35 see Grudem, Evangelical For the purposes of the present Feminism and Biblical Truth, 242–47. bibliography, it is enough to comment briefly on Johnson’s interpretations of Mathews, Alice P., and M. Gay 1 Cor 11:2–16 and 14:33-36. First, Hubbard. Marriage Made in Eden: it should be noted that he does make A Pre-Modern Perspective for a Post- some helpful observations. For instance, Christian World. Grand Rapids: Baker, he does acknowledge the presence of a 2004. hierarchical ordering in 1 Corinthians In a variety of ways, Mathews and 11, and unlike some egalitarians, he Hubbard contend for an egalitarian contends for the authenticity of 1 Cor framework for marriage. Historically 14:34–35. With respect to 1 Corinthi- speaking, they suggest that complemen- ans 11, however, he relativizes the force tarianism was largely a development of of his earlier observation by contending the Victorian age that has accommodated that in vv. 11–16 Paul proposes a “new itself to the culture. They maintain that creation” egalitarian model of gender complementarian theology is a key in- relations that, for all practical purposes, dicator of domestic violence. Sociologi- trumps his earlier comments in vv. 2–10. cally, they have conducted several surveys, According to Johnson, it seems that Paul which indicated to them that those with wanted to maintain a sense of defer- complementarian views were more likely ence, in matters of dress and decorum, to rate their marriages negatively. The to the cultural patriarchal expectations authors further contend that Scripture so as not to attach unnecessary offense unequivocally supports an egalitarian to the gospel. And yet, in Johnson’s model of marriage—so much so that view, Paul was simultaneously laying they see 1 Cor 7:2–5 as the only NT text the groundwork for a new egalitarian that “explicitly addresses the question of model of ministry. With respect to 1 Cor authority in marriage.” For a deft analysis 14:34–35, Johnson advocates an under- of these and other claims by Mathews standing of this passage that limits the and Hubbard, the reader is encouraged force of Paul’s instruction to the isolated to see John Tarwater’s thorough review circumstance—namely certain wives of Marriage Made in Eden in JBMW 9, interrupting the worship service and pro- no. 2 (2004): 42–48. phetic ministry by asking questions—of his direct recipients alone. Since spatial Pierce, Ronald W., Rebecca Mer- limitations preclude a detailed interac- rill Groothuis, with Gordon D. Fee, tion with Johnson’s proposals, allow me eds. Discovering Biblical Equality: to point the interested reader to a couple Complementarity without Hierarchy. of helpful resources that can give a brief Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. response to interpretations such as these. According to the editors, “Discov- (1) For a more persuasive reading of the ering Biblical Equality is the first mul- relationship between 1 Cor 11:2–10 and tiauthored volume to comprehensively, vv. 11–16, see Tom Schreiner’s chapter systematically and consistently articulate 71 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

an egalitarian position based on the te- instance, rightly insist on the complete nets of biblical teaching” (18). To that equality of men and women as creatures end, it serves as the counterpart to the made in the image of God. But, they one-volume multiauthored statement of do not as a result attempt to appropriate the complementarian vision of gender the term “egalitarian,” since this label has roles found in Recovering Biblical Man- long been a self-designation of those who hood and Womanhood (Crossway, 1991). affirm, not only full equality as image DBE proceeds in five main sections, suc- bearers, but an undifferentiated equality cessively addressing historical concerns, with respect to roles and relationships exegetical treatments of key passages, in the church and home. Conversely, theological syntheses, hermeneutical is- the term “complementarian” is the long sues, and practical applications. Many established shorthand designation for the of the chapter topics herein mirror those view that simultaneously affirms equal- found in RBMW, although the conclu- ity of essence and distinction of roles. sions clearly differ. Given the sheer As such, it does not make for accurate magnitude of the volume, a detailed representation to claim the complemen- interaction is not possible in the limited tarian label, while voiding the term of its space presently available. (For the needed established distinctives. This observation depth of interaction, the reader is encour- is especially important, when there is aged to see JBMW 10, no. 1 [2005]—an agreement over the mutually exclusive issue completely devoted to responding nature of the fundamental claims of the to the pivotal chapters in DBE.) For the two views. moment then, drawing attention to just two issues will have to suffice. First, it Non-Evangelical Books should be noted that, at the outset, the Venker, Suzanne. 7 Myths of editors (Pierce and Groothuis) of DBE Working Mothers: Why Children and disallow the possibility of finding “middle (Most) Careers Just Don’t Mix. Dallas: ground” on the basic issues at stake (17). Spence, 2004. They are correct in their conclusion; While Venker’s case is not made on complementarianism and egalitarian- biblical grounds, her book nevertheless ism are mutually exclusive in their core contains some wonderful insights and distinctives. We should all, therefore, feel observations. She does acknowledge the obligation of searching the Scriptures differences between the genders, and as diligently to ensure the biblical fidelity the title of the book suggests, she clearly of our views. Second, this recognition rejects the “have it all” mentality that of fundamental incompatibility on the modern feminism has foisted on so many part of DBE’s editors raises questions women today. Simply put, her main concerning their appropriation of the thesis is that mothering is an enormously term “complementarity.” The editors of valuable full-time job, not a responsibility DBE affirm “complementarity without on the side. Linked to this thesis, Ven- hierarchy,” and they suggest that the term ker discusses topics ranging from family “complementary” may more appropri- economics to day care. ately speak to areas of agreement between the two opposing evangelical views. In my judgment, however, this clouds the terms of debate. Complementarians, for 72 FALL 2005

Wilcox, W. Bradford. Soft Patriarchs, of marriage that embraces the egalitar- New Men: How Christianity Shapes ian rejection of male headship. Part II Fathers and Husbands. Chicago: Uni- provides criticisms of the “equal-regard” versity of Chicago Press, 2004. marriage from a variety of perspectives, Wilcox presents a very interesting including a fine essay defending a tradi- sociological analysis of Christianity’s tional complementarian point of view by effects on the strength of men’s attach- Robert Godfrey. ment to their families. What emerges from his study—surprising as it may be Dewey, David. A User’s Guide to to some secularist misconceptions—is Bible Translations: Making the Most of that evangelical Protestant men, whom Different Versions. Downers Grove: Wilcox terms “soft patriarchs,” appear to InterVarsity, 2004. be more dedicated to and involved with Dewey examines a host of issues their families than either their secular pertaining to the philosophy of transla- or mainline Protestant peers. Indeed, tion, and he also surveys the history of Wilcox finds this group of committed English Bible translations all the way up evangelicals to be more affectionate with through the twenty-first century phe- their families and to have lower rates of nomenon of internet Bibles. He favors domestic violence than any other group. a translation policy that incorporates in- Wilcox suggests that this is an initially clusive gender-language. With respect to surprising finding given the history of masculine generics, for example, Dewey evangelical support for “gender-role believes that the broader culture is either traditionalism.” From his point of view, incapable of understanding such passages however, the drawbacks to affirming or that the culture will take great offense gender role distinctions are offset by three at them. (With respect to these concerns, prominent factors: theological conserva- I refer the reader to The TNIV and the tism, familism, and church attendance. Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem. See the Undeclared Books review above.) Blankenhorn, David, Don Brown- ing, and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Thomas, Gary L. Sacred Parenting: eds. Does Christianity Teach Male Head- How Raising Children Shapes Our Souls. ship? The Equal-Regard Marriage and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. its Critics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Much as his earlier volume (Sacred 2004. Marriage) did with respect to marriage, This book is classified as “unde- Thomas’s newest book focuses on the clared” because of the diversity of view- spiritual formation that comes to parents points contained herein. Contributors to as a result of raising children. To that end, the book range from non-evangelical to he suggests that parenting is not, first Roman Catholic to evangelical egalitar- and foremost, about raising successful ian to complementarian. In its layout, well-adjusted kids. On the contrary, he Part I of the book is given to making the maintains that the parent-child relation- case for what proponents term “equal- ship is an instrument, in the hands of regard” marriage. With varying shades God, designed to make us more holy of emphasis depending on the particular as parents, even as we try to impact our author and chapter aim, this is a model children with the beauty of the gospel. 73 Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

Peppered with anecdotes, personal illus- trations, accounts from church history, and biblical analysis, this book brings a healthy perspective and needed reminder to the issue at hand. (In the interest of full disclosure, the reasons for classifying Thomas’s volume as “undeclared” should be noted. As helpful as I have generally found Thomas’s writings to be, I have come across a few passages in my reading of his publications that, so far as I can tell, reﬂect conﬂicting intuitions on his part concerning the notion of male headship.)

Thompson, Chad W. Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would: A Fresh Christian Approach. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004. Thompson, who himself has come out of the gay lifestyle, pens a thoughtful volume aimed at helping conservative Christians reach out in love to homosexuals without condoning homosexuality. While he honestly depicts his own story and addresses controversial issues such as the causes of homosexuality and the possibility for change, he is keenly concerned to address the church’s short- comings in actually reaching out to the gay community. He suggests that the confrontational “turn or burn” approach employed by many street preachers is less than helpful when the recipients do not already have a sense of their own sinfulness. By way of contrast, Thompson suggests that something akin to Paul’s approach in Acts 17 may be a fruitful evangelistic model in attempting to reach homosexuals with the gospel and the hope of change.