I had an "I'm stupid" a-ha moment a week or so ago in relation to the use of "brothers and sisters" to translate the Greek word "brothers" in the New Testament.
Ever since the TNIV, I've been explaining to others that versions like the NRSV, the NLT, the TNIV, and now the NIV2011 only used "brothers and sisters" when they thought Paul already included them. So when Paul tells the brothers to flee sexual immorality in 1 Thessalonians 4, he was surely not letting the sisters in the congregation off the hook.
That's all true, but I (stupidly) just caught on that this is not just a dynamic equivalent translation. It actually can be justified grammatically. Up until recent days, when you were speaking or writing to a mixed group of people in a gendered language, the convention has been to go with the masculine plural ending. This has previously been true, for example, in Spanish. If you were speaking to a group of men and women, you would normally say "amigos" and use the masculine plural ending. You have to pick a gender, so up until recent times you would have naturally used the masculine for a mixed group.
It hit me like a ton of bricks. It would be normal for a Greek speaker to address a mixed group of men and women with "brothers," fully including the women in the masculine plural ending. The implication is that in an age where it has become appropriate to be explicit about references to women in one's language, the best translation of "brothers" actually becomes "brothers and sisters." This is not just because they are implied in Paul's meaning. They are implied grammatically as well.
So I repent of my stupidity. Brothers and sisters actually becomes a more accurate translation, and versions like the ESV actually turn out to be inferior translations in this regard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
How can that be, Ken, when biblical culture was patriarchial? "The husband is the head of the wife", et al? A hierarchal "order" illustrates "proper submission" to God?
Isn't it "funny" how women are blamed in Islamic countries for sexual indiscretion, while the man gets off, yet, their culture is also patriarchal? And aren't some Chritian cultures similar as the women is seen a the temptress by her dress and behavior? Wasn't dancing considered "sinful" in your own tradition because of what it might "excite"?
Hasn't sex and the body in general been taboo in some segments of Christian culture, so much so that artists can't even draw nudes? and yet, some of the most famous artists thought that art was a gift to be used to glorify "God"? (The Reformation did a lot to damage art...as graven images were idolatrous.)
Isn't there a distinction between being nude and naked? Nudity is with the consent of the party, while "naked" means there has been a boundary broken, like in a rape? There is nothing innately wrong (sinful) about the body.
It is true that there are other passages that seem to suggest mutuality, like defrauding one another, but defrauding is more than sexual enticement. Isn't defrauding also a lack of mutuality, when "equality in the Body of Christ" was important? Didn't Paul lamblast those that thought they had leadership gifts, because they acted as if they hadn't recieved those gifts and disrespected their "brethren"? And yet, there were scriptures that promoted slave-holding, telling Onesimus to go back to his "master/owner". But, from what I understand slavery in ancient times was not like in modern ones...but Southern people did use it to justify slave holding. (All people do this to justify our "needs" and sanction them as "of God" because of scripture, or what we've "heard from God" spiritually speaking...)
Since I am unfamliar with Greek, I make no claims of knowledge on the N.T. as an expert. I am only sharing from what I remember.
i just blogged on this topic today,
http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2012/09/20/kinship-terms-in-hebrew/
Of course, in Greek, the expression adelphoi regularly referred to a brother and sister in the same family, or to brothers and sisters in the same family. In classical lexicons, adelphoi has always meant "brothers and sisters." For example, Cleopatra and Ptolemy, and Orestes, and Elektra were called adelphoi.
This is no gender sensitive discovery but just a recovery from stupidity that claimed that adelphoi meant "brothers." That was Grudem's idea, and he published it in the first draft of the Colorado Springs translation Guidelines. But somebody had to correct him on this.
I think that we also see this in English, as in, "Guys, I think that Ken is on to something!"
;-)
Since the Western Church's government was hierarchal, and used Latin, then didn't such "stupidity" go back to the Western Church? The Greek Orthodox would have assumed what Suzanne is saying because they did not create a different context.
This doesn't "prove anything" to me, as to the authority of the Church, except that it points out different distinctives between the East and the West as to their "government". Hierarchal views were "handed down" by tradition in the West as the Church became institutionalized. The Eastern Church must've kept more of the original structure of "community" in their structuring of Church government.
In correlation to our form of government, we believe that our three branches balance power. Each branch serves a particular purpose and it was so important to Jefferson to protect the objectivity of the judges that he removed the legislature out of the same building!
When those that interpret the laws are cozy with those who make the laws, then there is a conflict of interest. Those that make the laws, serve their own interests and not the people's interests, when they cease to have a grasp of what serves human flourishing (and since humans are developmental, there should be liberty in defining society)....which is to protect individuality, not further promote the elite's visions. The end of government is to limit itself, so that humans can decide, determine and functon in society as "moral agents".
I thought this post was about "brothers and sisters" in translation?
I think the exclusion of women is related to the reformation and the priesthood of all Believers. Men needed a formal way do excluding women, some of whom, at first blush, thought that the reformation was for them as well.
Quite a few women were active in the early days of the reformation and had to be put back in their place.
Yes, it was, John Mark, but, because "brothers and sisters" is within the context of scripture within a broader view of Church history (Church government) and a wider history of the world (nation states), then "brothers and sisters" can't be in relationship without government. These are diplomatic efforts at the national level, but America (or the West) is in crisis because government has attempted to give rights to non-citizens, and leaders have not upheld their oath of offices. Our national security is in a disarray and our foreign representatives (ambassadors, military personel, and secret service) are in danger of their lives because of religious zealots and those that want to promote an "ideal". "Brothers and sisters" is an "ideal term" if not understood in familial terms and the world isn't a place for "idealism".
And our nation supports terrorists and organizatons that do not hold to our values because of some "democratic ideal", when all nations and cultures are not equal!!! We tolerate to our own detriment! And that plays into enemy hands!!
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/19/obama-admin-lawyers-fight-to-obstruct-public-access-to-white-house-logs/
http://www.examiner.com/article/president-obama-s-muslim-outreach-appeasement-failure
Perhaps, the liberal left likes to develop nations, at the detriment of national security or Constitutioanal protections for individuals. That is not what a "representative government" is supposed to be about. If one chooses to develop other nations, that can be a choice of value. One can work in the State Department as there are many opportunities there. Or one can work for a corporation in whatever one's expertise is and further the corporation's goals in these nations.
Foreign policy must never be a "mandate"/"dictated" but, be a choice for the individuals within our nation, otherwise, our nation abandons its own needs to appease, defend, or justify another nation or people's right. And then, our leaders have abandoned their oath of office, and their integrity with citizens, as well as limits upon government in Constitutional principles....
Post a Comment