tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post8971084516059273898..comments2023-06-08T07:32:39.725-05:00Comments on Aristotle's Feminist Subject: Getting AmbiguitiesJ. K. Gaylehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-75802991232032627102011-07-07T06:03:02.731-05:002011-07-07T06:03:02.731-05:00the way Grudem has always understood that text, .....<i>the way Grudem has always understood that text, ... so clearly excludes me from being one of those Jesus came to identify with.</i><br /><br />Thank you for sharing this so clearly. You've inspired me to write a post (soon) to show how Wayne Grudem's "understanding" is a misunderstanding of the text.J. K. Gaylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07600312868663460988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-46903795484847745912011-07-06T20:13:48.427-05:002011-07-06T20:13:48.427-05:00PS. With regards to my comment above:
"Now ...PS. With regards to my comment above:<br /><br />"Now you inform me that people like Grudem believe this is not about accuracy in translation at all, but rather about their definition of "gender-neutral" as "male-neutering." I find that very odd."<br /><br />I have had a chance to read Grudem's essay, and it's clear that he at least <i>thinks</i> there are issues of accuracy here-- but what he considers an accurate translation seems to me to have a lot more to do with "the meaning of the text as I, Grudem, have always understood it" than "what the original writer may have intended to convey."<br /><br />In any case, I find it dismaying that he believes that since I am female, Jesus, in "being made like" us humans, could not have been "made like" <i>me</i>, because apparently my femaleness is the most important thing about me, and it somehow trumps my actual humanity. Therefore, Jesus was made like <i>his brothers only</i>, and not his sisters. To which I can only say that though this appears to be the way Grudem has always understood that text, I have never understood it that way, and I find it dismaying that he understands it that way, because it so clearly excludes me from being one of those Jesus came to identify with. I can only ask, does Grudem believe I'm fully human, or not? I'd have to say, from that essay, probably not. . .Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931921496989071942.post-9969337686498471922011-07-06T19:26:37.668-05:002011-07-06T19:26:37.668-05:00When I first heard about the "gender-neutral&...When I first heard about the "gender-neutral" controversy, it was about the TNIV. At that time, it was my understanding that the problem was that the "bad" TNIV people had translated as gender-neutral <i>in places where the original was clearly masculine.</i> I have since discovered that this is not the case; that the TNIV, and now the NIV 2011, were trying to translate as gender-neutral where, to the best of their understanding, the original text was gender-neutral. But up until now, I truly thought the issue was about whether the translation was actually accurate or not.<br /><br />Now you inform me that people like Grudem believe this is not about accuracy in translation at all, but rather about their definition of "gender-neutral" as "male-neutering." I find that very odd.<br /><br />As far as accuracy is concerned, it is clear to me that since Jesus was deliberately ambiguous in his attempts to get his listeners to think about things, we can hardly expect Aristotelian non-ambiguity (however hypocritically espoused) to be a main goal of the Old Testament texts Jesus quoted, or of the New Testament texts he inspired.<br /><br />So why should those apparently deliberate ambiguities now be cornered, tamed, trapped in a box, and used to serve male privilege? If a word can be read as meaning either males only, or males and females, then wouldn't it be best to translate as today's reader would best understand (such as "brothers and sisters") and if the translators aren't sure that "brothers only" might be meant in a certain place, simply put in a footnote? That way, the reader can see the ambiguity for him/herself (as well as any possible translator bias that results their thinking any passage referring to leadership/authority should mean "brothers only" while everything else can be "brothers and sisters")-- and the reader must <i>think about it</i>, just as Jesus appeared to want most often for his followers to do.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com