Jesus Identified with Women around Wayne Grudem

"The way [Wayne] Grudem has always understood that text ... so clearly excludes me [a woman] from being one of those [mortal humans that] Jesus came to identify with."

     --Kristen

"We can look at some examples of these changes from the 1984 NIV to the 2002 TNIV.

NIV Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
TNIV Hebrews 2:6 What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

What's wrong? The TNIV removes the possibility of connecting this verse with Jesus, who called himself 'the Son of Man.' It mistranslates the singular Greek words huios ('son') and anthropos ('man'). It no longer refers to the human race as a unity named 'man' (the name given by God in Gen. 5:2), but 'mere mortals.' This adds the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text. (Note that man as created by God was not mortal, and this passage has creation language in it.) But the TNIV's goal has been achieved: The male-oriented details are erased."
     -- Wayne

Kristen reads what Wayne wrote.  She gets us all wondering whether the text of the Bible has Jesus identified with women as much as with men, whether Jesus is identified in the Bible as a mortal, a mere human being.

Wayne is dead set against the TNIV, saying it "mistranslates" Hebrews 2:6.  Is his "understanding" justified?  Where does he leave women around him in relation to his Jesus, a Jesus whom he understands does not have any "idea of mortality" and, more importantly, does have each and every one of his "male-oriented details" intact and emphasized?

Let's look first at a couple of really good translations by a couple of really good translators on this verse.  Then, second, let's look at the original languages again.  Then, third, let's come back to the NIV 1984 translation and the TNIV; finally, we'll come to the NIV 2011.

-----

First, here is how Richmond Lattimore and Ann Nyland translate Hebrews 2:6.  Both of these translators know their Greek very well.

Richmond has this (and I'm using bold font the way Wayne does to mark certain words):

What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you consider him?

Ann has this (and I'm still using the bold font):

What is humanity that you remember it, or the Human Being that you visit him?

The translations are quite different.  Has one mistranslated?  No.  Has Ann just liberally added "the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text"?  Has she erased the "male-oriented details"?  No and no.

Richmond is sticking with a more traditional English for his translation of the Bible.  He's following the English of the KJV.  But please notice that he uses other, different English for his translation of Homer's Iliad.  He uses "mortal men" and "mortals" and "humanity" and "human people" for the plural of anthropos; this is not a mistranslation.  Likewise, Richmond uses of "child" and "children" for huios; this also is also not a mistranslation.  Richmond's English is not adding "the idea of mortality that is not in the Greek text."  That idea of mortals and of mortality really is already in the Greek text of Homer.   Similarly, Richmond is not erasing the "male-oriented details" of the children in the Greek text.  Let's look:

In his time two generations of mortal men had perished, (1.250)

But the gods give to mortals not everything at the same time; (4.320)

his heart out, skulking aside from the trodden track of humanity.  (6.202)

as is natural for human people, between men and women. (9.134)

Askalaphos led these, and Ialmenos, children of Ares, (2.512)

children of Euenos, king, and son of Selepios. (2.693)


child of Iphikles, who in turn was son to Phylakos (2.705)

Next he killed two children of Dardanian Priam (5.159)

So Richmond is free to translate the Greek text without adding and without erasing anything.  For Hebrews 2:6, he's decided to stick with the old traditional English he finds in the King James Version.  However, he could have translated that this way, the way he correctly translates Homer's Iliad again and again.  (If anyone wants, I'll also show more examples from his translation of Homer's Odyssey.)

Richmond would have had no problem correctly rendering Hebrews 2:6 like this:

What is humanity, that you are mindful of it, or the child of a mortal, that you consider him or her?

Now let's go back to Ann's English for the Greek.  But let's go first to how she correctly goes back to the Psalms.  She's noticing in her translation of Hebrews 2:6 how the writer is quoting the Psalms, either Psalms 8:4-5 or Psalms 144:3 or both.  When Ann translates this, that is, when she translates Psalms 8:4-5 and Psalms 144:3, she looks at both the Greek and also the Hebrew.  The Psalms are also in Greek because of a very early translation of them from Hebrew into this Hebraic Hellene.  The Greek writer of Hebrews is quoting from this Greek translation of the Hebrew Psalms.  So let's look at how Ann translates these Psalms from the Hebrew and from the Greek into English:

what is the humankind, that you should notice them, human beings, that you should pay attention to them? and make them a little less than the elohim?  You crown mankind with honor and significance.

Yahweh, what is the human race, that you should notice them, humankind, that you should be concerned about them?

Notice how Ann is not mistranslating.  She is not adding mortality, not erasing male-oriented details.  She is letting the psalmist sing as in the Hebrew and as in its Greek translation.  The idea of humanity, of humankind, of human beings, of the human race, is already in the text before translation.  And the gender neutrality is already there in the original languages.  And so, in Hebrews 2:6, Ann is letting the writer of Hebrews quote the Psalms this gender inclusive way.  She's letting the Bible speak of Jesus in a gender neutral way, in a way that includes women and men, females and males, girls and boys.  The Psalmist and the writer of Hebrews, like Homer too, are all making distinctions between God and humans, between immortal divinity and mortal humanity.  Richmond Lattimore and Ann Nyland do well to let the original language writers be inclusive for the human beings.

-----

Second, now, let's look at the original languages again.

Here's the original in Hebrews:

Τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human, gender neutral man]
ὅτι μιμνῄσκη αὐτοῦ,
ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son]
ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's]
ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν;

Here's the original Greek translation of the Hebrew [and the Hebrew] of the two Psalms quoted by the writer of Hebrews:

τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human, gender neutral man] [אנוש, 'ĕnôsh, properly a mortal, man, person, mankind]
ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ 

ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son] [בן, ben, son, grandson, child, member of a group, children (pl. - male and female)]

ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's] [אדם 'adam, person, human, man, Adam]
ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν; 

κύριε τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος [anthrōpos, mortal human] [אדם 'adam, person, human, man, Adam]
ὅτι ἐγνώσθης αὐτῷ 

ἢ υἱὸς [huios child, son] [בן, ben, son, grandson, child, member of a group, children (pl. - male and female)]

ἀνθρώπου [anthrōpou, mortal human's] [אנוש, ''ĕnôsh, properly a mortal, man, person, mankind]
ὅτι λογίζῃ αὐτόν

Notice how the Hebrew words for mortals, for humans, in Psalm 8:4 are reversed in Psalm 144:3.  But notice how the Greek translation of both words is always the same word for human beings in the two Psalms.  But really notice how both the Hebrew and its Greek translation, and its Greek quotation by the writer of Hebrews, all have the sense of mortality, of humanity, and the inclusion of males-and-females without the male-only detail.

-----

Third, now, let's look at the NIV translations again.  They do what the Greek and the Hebrew do.  When you read the original languages of the Bible, then you can see how, in many ways, in fact, the TNIV and the NIV 2011 are improvements over the NIV 1984.

NIV 1984 Hebrews 2:6 What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 

TNIV Hebrews 2:6 What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

NIV 2011 Hebrews 2:6  What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?

NIV 1984 Psalm 8:4  what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?

TNIV Psalm 8:4  what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

NIV 2011 Psalm 8:4  what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?  [footnote: Or what is a human being that you are mindful of him, / a son of man that you care for him?]

NIV 1984 Psalm 144:3  O LORD, what is man that you care for him, the son of man that you think of him?

TNIV Psalm 144:3  LORD, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?

NIV 2011 Psalm 144:3  LORD, what are human beings that you care for them, mere mortals that you think of them?

-----

Could it be that Wayne Grudem and the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are relying only on Bible translations that are only gender accurate when they exclude women and when they only include "male-oriented details'?

Could it be that the writer of Hebrews has identified the really biblical Jesus with mortal human beings, both men and women, in ways that really go around what Wayne prefers?

Yes, it could be.