The CBE Scroll

Comment by Ruud Vermeij

May 8, 2008 @ 1:17 am

Found on Ben Witherington’s blog

When my daughter, Kelli, was 3, she and my son, Cody, would say their nightly prayers, together.

As most children do, we have to bless every family member, every friend, and every animal (current and past). For several weeks, after we had finished the
nightly prayer, Kelli would say, “And all girls.”
As this soon became part of her nightly routine,
to include this at the end, my curiosity got the best of me and I asked her, “Kelli, why do you always add the part about all girls?
“Her response, “Because we always finish our prayers by saying ‘All Men’!”

In other words: in time the meaning of “men” seems to have changed from anthropos (humans) to andres (men, exclusive of women).

Comment by Mike Farley

May 8, 2008 @ 2:56 am

Interesting. The ESV has “men”; the new (only NT published to date) ISV has “people”, as does the faithful NRSV.

Dear old Strong’s gives anthropos as “man-faced, that is, a human being”.

Thayer has, “1) a human being, whether male or female; 1a) generically, to include all human individuals; …1g) with reference to sex, a male.” So male comes well down the list of possibilities.

My vote goes to people!

Comment by Liz

May 8, 2008 @ 6:49 am

This illustrates the fact that there is no ‘plain reading of scripture’ as suggested by some complementarians. Even with this one word, translations vary as well as commentaries so we have to look at the whole picture - word meaning, culture, context, character of God etc.

Comment by fjs, Faith J. Totushek

May 8, 2008 @ 7:07 am

According to the Word Study Dictionary Anthropos has to do with humans. (Page 180)

Definitions listed:
Man, a generic name in distinction from gods and the animals. In NT, used to make the distinction between sinful man, whose conduct, way or nature is opposed to God, and aner, male or husband. A man or a woman, an individual of the human race.

It can refer to men as males but would be qualified by context.

Ben Wintherington’s interpretation is this: “trust these to faithful persons who are sufficient/ qualified to teach others. (page 327) Hikanos means large enough or sufficient and has the meaning of competent or qualified to teach others. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians.

I think the emphasis in the scripture is not on gender but on people who are competent and qualified to teach others.

Comment by Suzanne

May 8, 2008 @ 8:48 am

I think it was perfectly appropriate to use “men” as a generic for all human beings, at some time in the past. However, there are two words in Greek, aner meaning usually (but not always) males, and anthropos meaning human beings.

I don’t think it is appropriate any longer to use “men” for this word unless it is made explicit that “men” means “all humans.”

So, these days, to avoid confusion, “all people,” or “humans,” or “persons,” is more accurate.

Some have said that anthropos can mean only men, or all people, but never only women.

However, in Numbers 31 there are 32,000 young unmarried women who are labeled anthropos, (and adam in the Hebrew.) These girls were classified as anthropos/adam because they were human. Even the oldest translations use “persons” as a translation into English.

If someone wants to use “men” in a poetic and archaizing way to refer to human beings, that should not cause a problem. But if anyone claims that there is some male meaning component to the Greek word anthropos, then 32,000 young women say not.

Comment by Laura

May 8, 2008 @ 10:27 am

My rule of thumb (not that I’m some well-practiced translator:-) has been to translate “anthropos” as “human” and “andres” as “man” unless the context dictates otherwise. The same rule applies to the Hebrew “adam” and “ish.”

Comment by tiro

May 8, 2008 @ 11:09 am

LSJ lexicon, says it is generic for mankind, humanity which is inclusive of both men and women. And also, that aner can be used similarly. But anthropos is primarily generic. Middle Liddle shows it is used to denote mankind, human, humanity as opposed to gods (or heroes) which is the same as using it generically. Slater and Autenrieth say the same. There are even instances when it is used in reference to women. Mainly the meaning is just human beings. I’ve other places I could look, but my recollection is that there is no disagreement on the places who don’t have a pet doctrine to prove.

Comment by tiro

May 8, 2008 @ 11:25 am

Ruud, post 86399. VERY cute story about your little girl. :) It does prove a point, doesn’t it. Even little girls don’t like to be left out.

Comment by jlp

May 8, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

So if anthropos means “people”, what effect does this have on whether or not women can teach the general assembly in the church (men as well as women)?

Comment by Liz

May 8, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

Seems clear to me! Women and men are equally able to teach the general assembly as long as they have the necessary gifts.

Comment by Liz

May 8, 2008 @ 6:07 pm

This verse and its continued translation as ‘men’ in most instances demonstrates how the whole patriarchal system has been continued very subtly at times through the use of words which if repeated enough become part of the psyche of a people.

So,it may take some time but we can do the same by using words like people in our conversations, teaching, translations etc. and in that way change the mindset.

Of course, that is one reason why opponents of gender specific translations would be concerned.

Comment by Ruud Vermeij

May 8, 2008 @ 11:47 pm

Tiro:
The story was not about my little girl. It was from a post on the blog I refered to.

Comment by fjs, Faith J. Totushek

May 9, 2008 @ 7:35 am

As I grow more anchored in my beliefs about biblicaly equality (and it is taking way too long) I am beginning to see the complete absurdity of the complimentarian and patriarchal positions. They have an agenda to keep women subdued under their authority. It even involves distorting the meaning of scripture to do so. They may be unaware that they are doing this because of their lenses but I have begun to believe that their position is profoundly unbiblical.

The anxious attachment to using the words man, men etc and the anxious attachment to perceived roles in the bible reveals the agenda. Otherwise they would not gripe about using the word people or humans when that is what is intended by the authors of the bible.

Comment by fjs, Faith J. Totushek

May 9, 2008 @ 7:55 am

I just want to qualify something…

I do not believe all complimenarians have an agenda.

some trust their leaders and do not know for themselves.
some are not aware of any other teaching and do not know any other possibilities.

But some should know better, especially translators and those who have theological training.

Comment by Tia Lynn

May 9, 2008 @ 10:35 am

It’s so disheartening to realize the sheer number of “mistranslated” words that have to do with gender. Words in the Greek that are gender-neutral or gender inclusive are so often translated as “men” or “man,” especially when the passage has to do with “official” ministry. I’m dealing with this right now over on my blog. We are discussing 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and I have a large complementarian readership, but who want to know the egalitarian position. If any of you wise egals would like to pop over and join in, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Comment by Suzanne

May 10, 2008 @ 12:24 am

You might be interested in this post of mine.

Comment by jlp

May 10, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

Tia Lyn,

Here’s the word for word translation of 1st Tim. 2:12 from Online Greek Interlinear:

1 Timothy 2:12
TO-BE-TEACHING YETto-WOMAN NOT I-AM-permittING NOT-YET nor-yet TO-BE-domineerING OF-MAN but TO-BE IN QUIETness

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti2.pdf

If you notice, Paul says “not yet”, indicating he is talking about a situation in the present tense, rather than a command for all time.

Comment by Suzanne

May 10, 2008 @ 3:54 pm

I don’t really think that it means “not yet” as a time sequence thing - really just “neither/nor.” But, certainly authentein does have the negative sense of “domineer.” One can make what one wants of it. I don’t have any special exegetical insights beyond what I have written.

I have recently started going to an egalitarian church where I don’t have to worry about it on a day to day basis any more. I think that is the only thing to do.

Comment by jlp

May 11, 2008 @ 8:06 am

Here’s something that may give insight into 1st Timothy 2:12:

Beyond Sex Roles
By Gilbert Bilezikian

Scholars have already pointed out that the present tense of Paul’s “I do not permit…” has the force of “I do not permit now a woman to teach.” But when these women will have learned sufficiently by sitting quietly and receptively under authorized teachers and when they “continue in faith, love, sancitfication and discretion,” there would remain no hindrance for them to serve as teachers, just as other women served as prophets in other churches.
End of quote

I think one of the justifications given for translating “anthropos” as men in 2 Tim 2:2 rather than as people was that some folks felt it must only refer to men because they felt 1st Timothy 2:12 prohibited women from teaching men. By pointing out that 1st Tim. 2:12 is in the present tense, it shows that Paul was not making a universal prohibition on women teaching men for all time. Therefore, 1st Tim. 2:12 should not be used as a justification for translating “anthropos” in 2 Tim 2:2 as men.

Comment by jlp

May 11, 2008 @ 8:09 am

Does anyone else know of a scholar who writes about 1 Timothy 2:12 being in the present tense? If so, can you let me know? I’m interested in what other scholars have to say about this.

By the way, the reference above is from page 180 of Beyond Sex roles.

Comment by jlp

May 11, 2008 @ 8:25 am

I just thought of something. 1st Tim. 2:12 goes as follows in the Greek Interlinear:

1 Timothy 2:12
TO-BE-TEACHING YETto-WOMAN NOT I-AM-permittING NOT-YET TO-BE-domineerING OF-MAN but TO-BE IN QUIETness

Should it be understood this way:
TO-BE-TEACHING YETto-WOMAN NOT I-AM-permittING NOT-YET

This part of the verse says that Paul is not yet allowing women to teach.

And in this part of the verse Paul is saying he does not allow women to dominate men:

TO-BE-domineerING OF-MAN but TO-BE IN QUIETness

So Paul is really putting forth two different thoughts here. The first is that the women at Timothy’s church should not teach yet, and the second is that the women at Timothy’s church should not try to dominate the men.

Usually this verse is put forth as one thought that women should not teach or hold authority over men. But it is really two different thoughts dealing with two different issues. The first that the women may not be ready to teach yet, and that second that women should not be dominating the men.

I know this blog is about 2 Tim. 2:2 and the word anthropos. But I mention 1st Timothy 2:12, because as I have said before, I’ve heard people use it as a justification for translating anthropos in 2 Tim. 2:2 as men

Comment by Liz

May 11, 2008 @ 10:15 am

Just a note about the quote from “Beyond Sex Roles” The page number is from the old edition and in the new (3rd) edition it is on page 137

Comment by jlp

May 11, 2008 @ 11:25 am

Thanks Liz!

Comment by Suzanne

May 11, 2008 @ 3:21 pm

JLP,

I think you are right on about 1 Tim. 2:12 being used as context for 2 Tim. 2:2 and it shouldn’t be. Most translations did not exclude women in 2 Tim. 2:2 because all women must teach. Timothy was taught by his mother and grandmother.

Because 1 Tim. is clearly about women who were doing something wrong ie domineering, I don’t think women were officially elected as leaders in that church, likely they were not allowed to teach.

However, I do not think that this was in any way a universal prohibition against women teaching. That would make nonsense out of the many mentions of women teaching and bearing witness in the scriptures. The Proverbs 31 woman taught. Susanna Wesley started out giving devotions to her household, the servants, and among them many men. This expanded into an informal congregation.

I am just suggesting that the “NOT YET” in the interlinear is an archaic English way of saying “nor” Women are never to dominate. Women are not to be “domineering” either now, or at some future date.

Comment by Lin

May 12, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

“Does anyone else know of a scholar who writes about 1 Timothy 2:12 being in the present tense? If so, can you let me know? I’m interested in what other scholars have to say about this.”

This woman has done a ton of research and has an excellent DVD series on this subject:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/

She has a ton of information on her blog about 1 Timothy and other passages.

Comment by Lin

May 12, 2008 @ 8:45 pm

” am just suggesting that the “NOT YET” in the interlinear is an archaic English way of saying “nor” Women are never to dominate. Women are not to be “domineering” either now, or at some future date.”

Suzanne, How do you deal with the grammar in that passage being singular as in Paul is talking about a specific woman. Not all women?

Comment by Suzanne

May 12, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

I don’t worry about the tense. The main point is that there is no example of authentein being used for church leadership. It means rule or dominate. So let’s look at this argument by a complementarian.

“Kostenberger persuasively argues that ouden links two concepts or activities that are either viewed positively or negatively by the author. Since didaskw is always viewed positively when used absolutely in the NT, then authentew should also be viewed positively.28 This suggests that authentein means “to exercise authority.”29 In light of all this, it is possible that the oujdev is epexegetical. This use may be found in Rom 2:28; 3:10; 1 Cor 5:1; and 15:50.30

In other words the passage may be translated, “I do not permit a woman to teach, namely, to exercise authority over a man.

Even though two prohibitions are given, the second seems to be the basis for the first, and perhaps the second infinitive elaborates on the aspect of teaching that is at the heart of the prohibition. If so, then women are not to teach in the assembly, not so much because they would be communicating the apostolic tradition to men, but because teaching does not stop there, but goes on to exercising an oversight relationship over men, and thus violate the principle of submission.31

Paul’s concern is not so much that women are publicly communicating truth to men, but that they are engaging in an oversight relationship over men.”

But if, as I argue, authentein has a definite negative meaning then the verse would be translated as,

“I do not permit a woman to teach, namely, to dictate to a man.”

Whatever this meant at that time, it would not be interpreted as a universal and all time prohibition against women elders in the church today.

Since there is strong evidence for this negative meaning, I think people should simple depend on the lexicon entry for this word, which is

BDAG - to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, dictate to

Comment by Suzanne

May 12, 2008 @ 9:23 pm

Charles Powell

Paul’s Concept of Teaching and 1 Timothy 2:12

Comment by jlp

May 12, 2008 @ 10:09 pm

Suzanne,

Did you want us to comment on Charles Powell’s material?

Comment by Suzanne

May 13, 2008 @ 1:08 am

Powell writes,

“perhaps the second infinitive elaborates on the aspect of teaching that is at the heart of the prohibition”

So for those who think that authentein means to exercise proper authority in church, then a woman should not teach in the role of exercising authority in church.

However, if the word authentein means,

“to assume a stance of independent authority” or “to dictate to” then

then a woman should not teach in the role of authority independent of the church. She should not lead people away from the established order or dictate to them.

I am sure we can all wonder at these simplistic statements by men that women are of a kinder and gentler disposition so they can’t correct doctrinal error.

Have they ever read Catherine Booth’s sermons? She rips into men for the low age of consent laws among many other things. She just goes right up one side and down the other. If I needed a lawyer, I would want her!

But actually, what was I thinking. Booth’s concerns were moral failure not doctrinal error.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 7:01 am

Powell’s old fashioned cultural view of women appears to be the lens through which he interprets scripture on women.

It makes me wonder how much the older cultural view of women plays into how evangelicals interpret scripture on women. It may even play into why they don’t seem to notice scripture that contradicts what they believe scripture says about women. Their old fashioned views blocks them from seeing anything in scripture about women that doesn’t fit with what their culture taught them about women.

In addition, part of our culture has always believed that a man’s value was based on the amount of power over others that he has. In other words, they see the man who is a politician or is a CEO as being more valuable than the truck driver or a carpenter. I think some of the older gender hierarchalists unconsciously see the concept of male authority as inherent to a man’s value. So they see male authority in scripture verses that we who do not have the same cultural beliefs do not see. Their cultural lens of a man’s value colors they way they see and interpret scripture.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 7:36 am

What’s ironic about some gender hierarchalists is that they say that egalitarians are influenced by culture. What they don’t understand is that they also are influenced by culture, just an older one than we are.

It’s strange for me to read some of their views. I do a lot of historical reading and I can tell their views on women are coming right out of a prior cultural time period. But they don’t see this, rather they think that everyone views women as they do. They think their views are transcultural and eternal.

Whenever a culture is in transistion on some deeply held belief, such as the topic of male authority and female submission, different parts of the population will hold different views on the subject. I’ve never seen a man’s value as tied up in the amount of power he has, but significant parts of our population still do. And I’ve never seen women as naturally submissive, but significant parts of our population still do.

It’s important when looking at the differences between groups within the Christian community to understand the large part that cultural influence has had in their understanding of scripture.

Comment by Suzanne

May 13, 2008 @ 10:35 am

I don’t think these people are just inheriting their views on women. I think that somewhere Schreiner and Daniel Doriani are putting out studies to prove that women are more easily deceived. I find this referenced but I can’t find the study itself.

Imagine a husband who believed this. He would feel he had the right to make all decisions for his wife.

What is over the top is that the actual academic word studies that are produced by some of these men have some fundamental flaws in them. No one could possibly imagine from them that men are less easily lead astray than women. We are all fallible, men no less so than women.

Comment by faith

May 13, 2008 @ 11:40 am

re Powell, everything he says about woman’s role hinges on his take of Genesis 1-3 and the role of women and all other intepretations are viewed in that light.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

I didn’t know about Schreiner and Daniel Doriani, that’s truly disappointing.

And yes, there are some academics that are putting out word studies that are inaccurate, and are hindering the Christian community’s ability to move ahead in understanding what the Bible truly says about women. It kills me that this is going on.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 3:52 pm

I agree Faith, that Powell’s beliefs on women are viewed through his take on Genesis 1 and 2. But in addition his attitudes towards women can be seen as paralleling that which were held by part of the population in the first half of the 20th century.

Comment by Suzanne

May 13, 2008 @ 4:23 pm

It is sad to see so much of this stuff on Bible.org.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 5:40 pm

It’s absolutely tragic.

Comment by faith

May 13, 2008 @ 5:55 pm

I used to fear the complimentarian interpretations because they asserted them as “biblical”, now I see their agenda too. And while I fear the power they still rein on so many christians who are afraid of being unbiblical if they venture into freedom for men and women, I no longer fear their interpretation as more biblical… I see the lenses and their anxiety about losing whatever it is they fear losing.

Comment by jlp

May 14, 2008 @ 1:18 am

I do think some comps feel they are going to lose something if men don’t retain the upper position in gender relations.

Comment by madame

May 15, 2008 @ 3:50 am

Re. Patriarchal and complementarian teachers, they are afraid of “losing something” if they allow Scripture to change their view.

(quote)
3. Culture is not happenstance, but prepared by God. Israel with its patriarchal system was peculiarly designed by God as his vehicle of divine truth. Moreover, in “the fullness of time” the gospel came. Thus, Christianity holds that Biblical patterns are significant and normative. They reflect the mystery of the divine order. To man is confided the task of ruling; to woman the task of serving

4. The symbolism of the relationship of God to his people (Hosea) and of Christ to his church (Eph. 5) demands a male officeholder in the church and a male authority in the home. Only in this way is divine authority, dominion, and supremacy adequately portrayed. We are not free to tamper with the Biblical imagery without losing some of the mystery.

5. The virgin Mary exemplifies the ideal woman in her voluntary submission and response to the will of God.

6. The principles of obedience, submission, and authority are clear in both the Old and New Testament. The teaching regarding a hierarchy in male and female relationships is only one aspect of a larger and necessary ordering of all reality that extends into the Godhead itself ©£ Christ’s obedience and submission to the Father and the Holy Spirit’s subordination to the Son). In the created order, this hierarchical structure provides each level of being its proper responsibility and privileges — archangels, angels, men, women, children, animals, etc.
(end of quote from the article I link to below)

I believe translation and interpretation of some passages is biased and needs revision. For example, Titus 2.5 translates the word “Hupotasso” as obedience instead of submission (KJV, only Bible some Patriarchs and Comps will use)
The varied interpretations of submission are also notorious. Why is it that Ephesians 5.21 is taken to mean respect/esteem/give into (milder meanings) and in verse 22 it means “obey” (not translated as obey, but it’s the connotation used when it’s preached)?

To answer the question about anthropos, it means human, not just man. Aner is the word for man and husband, while gyne is the one for woman and wife.

Some Complementarians try to fix it by translating “wife” in the context of not usurping authority/teaching/preaching/ wearing veil, etc. It’s convenient and seems to make sense, but it’s a faulty solution.

This article is interesting.

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=3277&C=2729

Comment by faith

May 15, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

JLP, ya gotta ask why? what would they lose? It could be a profound spiritual formation moment if it were examined… what is it so important to maintain the head role?

Comment by faith

May 15, 2008 @ 12:50 pm

Madame, In Genesis 1:26-28, we read that the man and the woman were called to govern the earth. It is referred to the cultural mandate. They were to govern togther as regents of God created in his image. Only after the Fall did that governing become patriarchial. All cultures since have been influaced by post fall cultures in which fallen humanity has been a part. Christ came to redeem fallen humanity and restore what had been lost in the fall. I disagree with you that God set up a particular patriarchial culture.

Indeed I believe he worked within cultures and among people with particular cultural worldviews. I do not think God ordered that culture. We participate with him in his work. The effects are largely based on how well we listen and act on What is in God’s heart for his world.

If God created a patriarchial he would be responsible for all the havoc and evil that patriarchial cultures are guilty of. I truly believe God seeks to influance us according to his character and heart of justice. He seeks to transform culture.

futhermore. all patriarchial cultures around the world believe that the gods gave them their cultures.

Comment by madame

May 15, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

Faith,
I agree with you. I posted parts of the article I linked to, to show that “traditionalists” (also known as patriarchal) fear losing the God given order if they accept any other teaching than the one they adhere to.

I don’t think that patriarchalism, at least the way it’s lived out, is God’s will.
You are right, before the fall, Adam and Eve stood side by side and were given dominion TOGETHER.

Comment by Frank Geis

May 17, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

Just an observation from someone having translated Jude and written a commentary based on that translation. It seems to me that the translator must not only consider the semantic range of a given word, but its actual usage in the verse and its contextual congruence. Or more simply stated, unless there are obvious clues in the proceeding and following texts that clearly demonstrate that Paul was only referring to men, the word would be better translated as “people.” The principle that “any text without a context is a pretext” can also be applied to the translation of individual words.