tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post7525303301726281622..comments2023-06-08T07:32:39.725-05:00Comments on Aristotle's Feminist Subject: Proverbs 14 part vi: Gender in 2011J. K. Gaylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-68797252792002378342011-06-29T09:59:04.208-05:002011-06-29T09:59:04.208-05:00Thank you, Kristen. I hope more of us see this. ...Thank you, Kristen. I hope more of us see this. As you say: "The real issue is that the SBC objects to the NIV 2011's use of gender-neutral terms <i>when the translation might have a bearing on women in leadership.</i>"J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-22388374455265880742011-06-29T01:11:04.172-05:002011-06-29T01:11:04.172-05:00I posted a link to this post on Denny Burk's b...I posted a link to this post on Denny Burk's blog in a new post revisiting this NIV 2011 issue. I apologize if it ends up embroiling you in the conflict. But I thought that your color-coded data comparison was something they should see.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-60913156505998763782011-06-28T15:55:33.074-05:002011-06-28T15:55:33.074-05:00Kristen,
Yes, it's tough to make sense of the ...Kristen,<br />Yes, it's tough to make sense of the rhetoric from the men who are the SBC official representatives. It's almost as if they are not very careful with their reasons.<br /><br />Thanks for sharing the links! I read through all that everybody said there. How fascinating that there is conversation with Suzanne and with you, Kristen, even though you are women :). Doesn't the view of the scriptures the men against you quote actually tell them that they shouldn't be so talking, with you? :) Sigh. They must know profoundly otherwise, that Wisdom in the bible is a woman.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-71107140796130487432011-06-27T14:13:26.926-05:002011-06-27T14:13:26.926-05:00Kurk, this evidence, simply from looking at their ...Kurk, this evidence, simply from looking at their own favored translations, is pretty compromising, isn't it?<br /><br />With regards to where I was having the conversation with "SBC folks," I don't know for sure that they were, but it was on Denny Burk's blog, and he seems, as Suzanne mentioned on her blog, to be acting in many of his posts as the SBC's "voice" (or at least the voice of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which I understand has close ties to the SBC). Here's where Suzanne said that:<br /><br />http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2011/06/denny-burk-on-niv2011.html<br /><br />And here is a link to the conversation on Burk's blog: <br /><br />http://www.dennyburk.com/critiquing-gender-language-in-the-new-niv/#comment-67484<br /><br />I will say that several times I was tempted to "be quiet," as they clearly wanted me to do-- but I remembered your encouragement not to "sit down" or "shut up," so I didn't. :) After inferring that I was merely a rebellious woman who didn't want to obey the "clear" text of Scripture, they finally let me have the last word.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-23299406923242457792011-06-27T13:07:13.767-05:002011-06-27T13:07:13.767-05:00Thanks for your careful and compelling analysis, K...Thanks for your careful and compelling analysis, Kristen. I'd like to compare just three of the (faulty) SBC "WHEREAS" assumptions in the public resolution against NIV 2011 with your analysis. Here they are:<br /><br /><br /><i> WHEREAS, Southern Baptists repeatedly have affirmed our commitment to the full inspiration and authority of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-16) and, in 1997, urged every Bible publisher and translation group to resist “gender-neutral” translation of Scripture; and<br /><br />WHEREAS, This translation alters the meaning of hundreds of verses, most significantly by erasing gender-specific details which appear in the original language; and<br /><br />WHEREAS, Although it is possible for Bible scholars to disagree about translation methods or which English words best translate the original languages, the 2011 NIV has gone beyond acceptable translation standards; and<br /><br />WHEREAS, Seventy-five percent of the inaccurate gender language found in the TNIV is retained in the 2011 NIV; and.... </i><br /><br />Now, you find this, in contrast or contradiction to the SBC assumptions:<br /><br />- that in Proverbs 14, of 35 verses, "the HCSB had completely gender-neutral language in 19 verses."<br /><br />- that the "HCSB had Wisdom gendered female in verse 33, as did the 1984 NIV" as well as the 2011 NIV.<br /><br />- that there seems not to be "a pattern as to why these gender-neutral choices were made" by the SBC publishing house's translation.<br /><br />- "that in chapters that aren't about 'the woman question,' the SBC maybe doesn't care that gender-neutral language is used in a translation."<br /><br />--<br /><br />You also make an excellent point about "adelphoi" really meaning "brothers and sisters" as Paul writes the Greek word. (Where are you talking about this with SBC folks?) Analogously, "anthropoi" can really mean "women and men," and this is the word that the LXX translators use in Proverbs 14:12. So what's most accurate?<br /><br />"There is a way that seems right to a man," - HCSB, ESV, NIV1984<br /><br />"There is a way that appears to be right," - NIV2011<br /><br />"There is a path before each person that seems right," - NLT<br /><br />"There is a way that seems to be right among people," - Johann Cook for the NETS SeptuagintJ. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-21220506106901903402011-06-26T18:42:54.020-05:002011-06-26T18:42:54.020-05:00Sorry; I got mixed up above. What I meant to writ...Sorry; I got mixed up above. What I meant to write was:<br /><br />The ESV was more gender neutral than either the HCSB or the 1984 NIV in verses 7 and 16. Vice-versa for the HCSB over the ESV and the 1984 NIV in verses 3 and 29.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-60958763182763851492011-06-26T18:40:37.026-05:002011-06-26T18:40:37.026-05:00I had to wait until Sunday to work on this "a...I had to wait until Sunday to work on this "assignment." *grin* But it was very interesting to do. <br /><br />I found that 15 verses were in agreement as to gender (or lack thereof) between all 5 translations.<br /><br />I found that the HCSB had completely gender-neutral language in 19 verses.<br /><br />I found that the HCSB was more gender-neutral than the 1984 NIV in 7 verses, and the ESV was more gender-neutral than the HCSB in 7 verses-- but not necessarily the same ones. They agreed to be more-gender neutral than the 1984 NIV in verses 2, 15, 19, 27 and 31. The ESV was more gender neutral than either the HCSB or the 1984 NIV in verses 7 and 16. Vice-versa for the HCSB over the ESV in verses 2 and 16.<br /><br />The HCSB had Wisdom gendered female in verse 33, as did the 1984 NIV.<br /><br />I couldn't really see a pattern as to why these gender-neutral choices were made (when they differed from the NIV 1984) except to note that they tended to render language describing a "fool" gender-neutral more often, and language describing "the wise" gendered (as male) more often. This was not a consistent pattern, however. <br /><br />With regards to this question:<br /><br />"So what does the gender-neutral language of Proverbs 14 in the HCSB, the ESV, the NIV1984 and 2011, and the NLT say about the SBC men who have made their targeted resolution?"<br /><br />I think it says that in chapters that aren't about "the woman question," the SBC maybe doesn't care that gender-neutral language is used in a translation. It's only in places like 1 Cor 14, where how a word like "adelphoi" is translated really can exclude women from empowerment, that they care. I was in a big argument with some of them last week over this translation issue, and really, what mattered to them was that "adelphoi" in 1 Cor 14 had to be translated "brothers" (males only) to keep women from exercising any gift of teaching in church. This, even though they agreed that Paul had gone back to using "brothers" in Chapter 15:1-2 to mean "brothers and sisters," without actual telling his audience so. We are simply to infer-- if it's about salvation, it's "brothers and sisters." But if it's about exercising any gift of the Spirit that might be used with any authority, it's "brothers only." <br /><br />Erg. What it's really about is that they want to be in control of the Bible's language so that they can make the male-gender language mean whatever they decide it means.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com