The CBE Scroll

How should the first part of Malachi 2:16 be understood?

In the NIV, the first part of the verse reads: ‘”I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself [a] with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.’ (2:16, emphasis added) The footnote to this verse in the NIV says ‘[a] or his wife.’

In the TNIV, the first part of the verse reads: ‘”I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate it when people clothe themselves with injustice,” says the LORD Almighty.’ There is no footnote reading ‘or his wife.’

If you look at the ESV, it’s translated this way: ‘”For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “covers his garment with violence,” says the LORD of Hosts.’

Somewhere in the past, I heard that ‘garment’ was a Hebrew slang term of the time for ‘wife.’

In the NIV, it appears that the word ‘himself’ could be translated ‘his wife.’ In this version it could be argued that God hates it when a man beats his wife. The TNIV doesn’t allow for this translation at all. It doesn’t even mention men or violence.
The ESV mentions that the man who does not love his wife but divorces her covers his garment with violence. In this case ‘garment’ appears to refer to the man himself. Or, does it really refer to the slang term ‘wife?’ If so, is divorce being compared to a man doing violence to either himself or his wife?

With so many Bible translations to pick from, sometimes it’s hard to know which version most accurately represents the thought being expressed in the original language.

My question is: does this verse indicate that God hates it when a man is violent towards his wife, or that God is comparing divorce to violence, or does it mean something else? And, if it does mean something else, what is it?

Parableman points to a news item about Judge Robert Armstrong in California, who has ruled that a law against disrobing in front of a minor applies only to men and not to women, even though no mention of gender occurs in the law. How so? The law says “exposes his person.”

Like Parableman, I’m more than a bit mystified by this odd ruling. Does Judge Armstrong not know that English-speakers have been using masculine pronouns for gender-indeterminate or gender-unknown people for approximately forever? Has he not considered that the writers of that law were not thinking about the gender of the hypothetical ecdysiast at all?

Alas, Judge Armstrong would find many kindred spirits among a certain brand of evangelical Christian, where the masculine pronouns in such verses as “If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Tim 3:1, KJV) are given their full force. In both cases, the issue is English grammar—King James’ “a man” renders the Greek tis, a relative pronoun that can be either masculine or feminine, and the verb “he desireth” renders Greek epithymei, a third person form that can be suitably rendered with either “he,” “she,” or even “it.” That is why better Bibles (NRSV, TNIV, etc.) avoid the confusion by not importing gender language into verses such as this where they do not exist in the original. Of course, there are other passages where the gender component is present in the Greek text. The requirement that a church leader be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2) springs to mind. But does that mean Paul found it unthinkable that women might lead in the church?

Personally, I strongly suspect that Paul assumed that, by and large, the persons who assumed oversight in the churches would be male. But Paul assumed this based on the cultural norms of his day, and I’m convinced he was aware—and affirming—of certain exceptions. He commended Junia the apostle, for example, in Romans 16:7, and referred to Euodia and Syntyche as his “fellow laborers” (Phil 4:2-3), a term he most often used for those in the frontlines of his apostolic ministry. If most first-century church leaders ended up being male, it was not because that is what Paul demanded but because that was what the Greco-Roman culture would endure. Assuming Pauline authoriship of the Pastorals and the Prison Epistles, it is clear that Paul was willing to embrace the prevailing cultural norms insofar as they served in the short term to advance the cause of Christ (Eph 5:21–6:4; 1 Tim 2:1-2, Philemon, etc.).

An assumption, innocently made in light of prevailing social custom, does not a doctrine make.

The Evangelical Christian Publishing Association (ECPA) has announced this year’s finalists for their Christian Book Awards. Normally, I do not pay attention to these types of awards, because I like to judge a book for myself rather than take somebody else’s word for it whether the book is good or not. However, a couple of entries under the category of “Best Bible” disturb me. They are The Holman CSB Minister’s Bible and The ESV Reformation Study Bible. Let me explain why it bothers me that either of these would be considered the best Bible that Christians can study.

To begin with, both the CSB and the ESV were created as a protest to the TNIV. How do we know this? Well, let’s take a look at the CSB first. It is published by Broadman & Holman, who are the publishers for the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist denomination. David R. Shepherd, Vice-President:

Some recent translations have reinterpreted the Bible to make it consistent with current trends and their own way of thinking…. Current trends in Bible translation have been a real wake-up call for everybody who’s concerned about preserving the integrity of Scripture. The CSB will be under the stewardship of Christians who believe we should conform our lives and culture to the Bible - not the other way around.

So what were the “recent translations” and “current trends” that the translators of the CSB were worried about? Well, according to Michael Marlowe:

The Christian Standard Bible (CSB) was conceived as a replacement for the NIV, which the SBC Sunday School Board had been using in its curriculum materials under a license agreement. The NIV became controversial after the International Bible Society acknowledged in 1997 that it was revising the NIV with “politically correct” gender neutral language, and so in 1998 the Sunday School Board entered into an agreement with Arthur Farstad… to oversee the production of a new version that would be under its own control [see article above].

Now let’s take a look at the ESV. Again, according to Michael Marlowe:

The English Standard Version (ESV)… had its roots in discussions that took place before the May 1997 meeting called by James Dobson at Focus on the Family headquarters to resolve the inclusive NIV issue.

The night prior to the meeting, critics of regendered language gathered in a Colorado Springs hotel room to discuss the next day’s strategy… The group discussed the merits of the Revised Standard Version… recently replaced by the New Revised Standard Version, a regendered update.

Some months later…Wayne Grudem and Crossway President Lane Dennis entered into negotiations…to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation.

In addition to Grudem, big name scholar J. I. Packer was also present at that meeting, the author of a February 1991 article in Christianity Today entitled “Let’s Stop Making Women Presbyters,” an article which CBE has refuted. The resulting Colorado Springs Guidelines listed concerns over using gender-neutral language in biblical translation, which Craig L. Blomberg has also answered. Others have criticized the Guidelines as well.

Given all this, then, the question must be asked, when you have a preconceived bias on a particular issue, is it possible to set aside that bias when it comes to translating the Bible, or will that bias carry into the translation? One of the tenets of the Guidelines is “We agree that Bible translation should not be influenced by illegitimate intrusions of secular culture or by political or ideological agendas.” So did the translators of the CSB and ESV set aside any ideological agendas they might have had?

Let’s look at an example: 2 Timothy 2:2. Both the CSB and the ESV render this verse as: And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. In the Greek, anthropos means “mankind, all people.” So why, then, is it rendered only as “men” in these two translations?

I cannot speak for the translators of the CSB. However, here is what Packer said in an interview about the ESV’s rendering of “men” in that verse:

Suzanne: I have to ask you about 2 Tim. 2:2. Did you think that anthropos referred to “men” in this verse?

Dr. Packer: I think it means “men” exegetically. We think that it means “men”…

Suzanne: I was brought up with that verse in our Christian Fellowship and I always thought that it was ‘men and women’. It was quite a shock to me to find that people would think that it was “men only.”

Dr. Packer: Well, Paul doesn’t say that it was “men only,” he just says “men,” but in the situation, it was to the teachers, surely it is obvious from the context that they were men.

This apparent bias appears in other passages, as well. In Romans 16:7, the ESV has Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. According to New Testament scholar Jay Eldon Epp, however, “among the apostles” is the correct translation. (See his book Junia: The First Woman Apostle) That’s a big difference! The CSB has “among the apostles.” This, and the fact that most other translations — including the NASV, KJV, NIV, and NRSV — have “among” makes the ESV stand out even more. To its credit, though, the CSB and ESV do translate the name “Junia” correctly as female. Most recent conservative translations, such as the NIV, have rendered it incorrectly as a male name. One does wonder, however, what the supporters of the CSB think about Paul’s naming a woman among the apostles.

When it comes to choosing a Bible, there are many fine choices. I myself like using more than one version. However, a person should always ask the basic question: how accurate is this translation? In that regard, I believe it is possible to say that not all Bibles are created equal.

Lori

Conversations continue about Today’s New International Version (TNIV) translation of the Bible. While much has been debated over this issue already (see CBE’s articles in response to criticisms of the TNIV here), I believe the direct personal critique of the people involved in this translation warrants a post. Gordon Fee, Ronald Youngblood, Bruce Waltke, and others on the translation team are men of that stature and outstanding biblical scholars; I studied text criticism under Dr. Fee and I know Dr. Youngblood from his work in the ministry I presently help oversee. One wonders where this might lead.

Together with a team of 5 others, I translated a New Testament for an Asian Bible-less tribe back in the 1980’s. Wycliffe, Living Bibles and others helped us get it out. I know something about translating.

Having written that, the recent activity of whole denominations and religious groups publicly stating that the recent TNIV translation is “not commendable” makes me flash back to the 1950’s to the pictures of fundamentalist churches piling up huge stacks of RSV’s in their church parking lots and burning them. I suspect God cringed in the 1950’s and He does now in the early part of a new millenium over the same behaviors.

The issue is control. The critics of the TNIV want to control 60% of the church [read: the women]. These self-proclaimed “Bible evaluators” are out of step with contemporary evangelical Biblical scholarship. I spoke with one seminary president who confided to me that 90% of contemporary NT evangelical professors are egalitarians. How much further out of step can loud detractors of the TNIV be?