As someone who has grown with a strong french background, when i went into a country where English is spoken, i watched a bunch of videos promoting KJV and NKJV and the best bibles...So i bought them and started to read them side by side so i can also fellowship with my new brothers and sisters in Christ...But, i was being lost because the English wasn't beginner friendly...So what??Should i keep on reading something i don't understand where in an hour i just read 2 verses and the rest of the time being in an English dictionary???Is that what God want for me?? No... That's why this is a very useless debate on bible versions. I'll tell what I've learned in my life as a Christian. Whatever bible version you have and your confortable with, read it if you can understand, and the Holy Spirit won't let you down. When you're really seeking for the truth because you love God, the Holy Spirit will guide you. You can have your main bible that you use for your daily devotion, that you understand and can memorize verses, and have other bibles aside when comparing and try to grab the context. You can start debates from the morning till the evening about bible versions, at the end of the day millions of people are being saved, strengthened and blessed by the bible versions that some criticize or dislike, etc... When you die, God won't ask you which bible version you used to read. It will be a matter of if you gave your life to Jesus or not, if you worked in the fear of God or not, if you obey Christ's commandments or not...With any versions of the bible God can lead, and if the version is very evil, with false and intentionally wrong interpretations, the Holy Spirit will give you a red flag and lead you to a better one for you, because if you really seek God in truth, he'll show you the way. Even in french, the bible i use is not beginner friendly. So i knew some people because of their education, didn't understand it and kept using it because it said it was the best. But, i did the same, told them to grad a simpler version, easy french that they can understand and God through is Holy Spirit will guide them, and they ended being really blessed because they were now reading something they were understanding and they become more productive in their devotion and meditation, but what i also device from time to time try to see what other versions says to try get a better idea, and it works. My English isn't the best, but i think it can be understood.
Thanks for your comment. I also do not like when people debate the “best” versions. I agree that God can be known through any version. I made this video specifically because the ESV has made intentionally misleading translation choices to support a theology that is not present in the text. In other words, they are “false and intentionally wrong” translations, to use your wording. I want people to be aware of these problems so that when they do read the ESV, they realize that the translation may not be representing the text accurately. Thanks for watching and commenting. And your English is great and understandable! :)
Your English is pretty good and this post is very well written. I agree 100% with you, people should read whatever they're comfortable with. It's also nice to read different translations to see the difference. So far, I have the KJV(my first), ESV, and currently I'm on the NKJV, I plan on reading all and maybe I might read the Catholic bible for fun to see what's different. God bless you friend, your English is great.
I have the original French version of the Jerusalem Bible. My French is reasonably good and I quite enjoy reading it. If I read a passage which I know well, it improves my French!
@@777Bible The Catholic Church (in England and Wales and many other English speaking countries) currently uses the RSV and will shortly adopt the ESV - so a “Catholic” Bible is no different to the Bible used by most Protestant Churches.
You can pick up every single translation of the Bible, and find a handful of occasions where you’re not too happy. EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION! This is a futile exercise.
I agree with you, often times people just like finding issues with translations. You will notice that I have not done this for other translations. The reason being, most other translations aren’t breaking basic translation rules in specific and targeted verses that create problems for the translators theology. There is a reason many of these choices didn’t exist until now, and that is because these choices are illegitimate options. Thanks for watching.
I have more translations that agree with the ESV than disagree on most of the verses mentioned in this video. The only translation that consistently agree with your video are the NRSV and NIV that I read regularly. The more literal translation like ESV, NASB, LSB, NKJV are pretty consistent on those verses. It appears that your video has an agenda as well.
When I begin discussing deacon/servant, I flat out state that other translations have the same problems that the ESV does. That said, when you look at Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:17, you will find that most translations translate the prepositions consistently and differently than the ESV does. As I said, virtually every translation has “for” instead of “contrary to” and many have “among” instead of “notable to.” Rom 16:7 NASB95 Greet Andronicus and 1Junias, my kinsmen and my bellow prisoners, who are outstanding *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me” NKJV Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Gen 3:16 NASB Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And bhe will rule over you. NKJV Your desire shall be *for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” I do not deny my agenda, which is stated in the title and throughout the video, pointing out the problems with the ESV and how those problems negatively affect women and men. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for your response. I do hold an egalitarian view because I believe the Bible as a whole supports that view. I don’t think you need the verses you mention to have an egalitarian view. It is also wrong to tweak translations to fit a viewpoint. I tend to agree with the translation choices of the more literal translations like the ESV, NASB 2020, LSB, CSB and the below quoted NET Bible. You mention Genesis 3:16 and how the ESV used contrary. I tend to agree with the ESV view which is also in line with the NET Bible. I think two things happened as a result of the fall. The woman will want to control her husband and the husband will dominate over her. Control and dominate were not mentioned before the fall. Romans 16:1 Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:1. tn Or “deaconess.” It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:7. tn Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (episēmos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). 1 Tim 3:11-12 Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 1 Ti 3:11. tn Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaikas) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives”-referring to the wives of the deacons-is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019). Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ge 3:16. tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (téshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83. Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).
@@donmoe3083Thanks for the NET Bible quotes. Very insightful. I mostly appreciate your balanced, reasonable view of translations and theology. If we need a few particular renderings to support our theology, we're likely not developing our theology properly. God bless.
Since this video is comparing the ESV to the NRSV and noting departures from the literal text, it seems disingenuous to ignore the fact that in the very same verse, 1 Tim 3:12 the NRSV changes “husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) to “married once” removing an explicitly male reference.
Hello, thank you so much for your comment. I was not specifically talking about the NRSV, and so discussing the NRSV’s departures from the Greek text was not the focus of this video. The NRSV was actually just an stand in English version. That said, leading Greek scholarship argues that this reference is not actually gender specific. So, the NRSV’s choice is rooted in that information. This phrase is actually how one talks about someone being faithful to their spouse, and there are multiple inscriptions they cite as evidence. Note that below it says, “he or she was married only once.” In other words, this is not specifically a “male” reference (There is a reason in my video I say that these deacons are “seemingly” men. The ESV has interpreted this phrase as a male referent, and chosen to translate it deacon when in reality this phrase too suggest that the passage is not male specific). I would have liked to discuss this in the video, but I was trying to keep it short and not overly technical. “μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16-29. For the use of μία in ref. to a woman: Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 346 ” (BDAG, εἷς,μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός) Thanks for your comment and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD I appreciate your response but I feel like saying “Greek scholarship” does not agree that the deacon is male is an overstatement. The NRSV is in a very small minority of translations (in both number and use) that do not explicitly identify the Decon as male. If you fault the ESV for it you also have to condemn the host of witnesses in nearly every other major translation. The RSV, NIV84, NIV2011, CSB 2017, CSB 2020, KJV, NKJV, NASB 95, NASB2020, LEB, BSB, ASV, NET and NLT So this “problem” exists in nearly EVERY major modern translation. I can’t see anyone accepting that so many widely used translations all conspired together and got this wrong.
I agree. I have been learning a lot about the various translations lately and I have seen many videos against the ESV, like this one……. AND also some very convincing videos talking about similar translation problems/biases in the NRSV (“men who engage in illicit sex”…). It feels like political infighting unfortunately and becomes hard to know who to trust. I just want an accurate Bible, but all the “experts” point me in confusing directions. I guess I just need to learn Greek myself???
The ESV calls Titus and co "messengers" but not apostles in 2 Cor 8:23, as they do with Epaphroditus in Phil 2:25. They do call Jesus an apostle in Heb 3:1, despite apostelos being used in all these passages. It seems like Crossway took a conservative approach to church roles in general. If they depart from their translation philosophy to make it seem like men weren't apostles, why do you think it would be inconsistent for them to do the same with women?
This is a deeply misleading video and you appear to have assumed malice and prejudice rather than acknowledge the sincere scholarly disagreement as to how these verses should be rendered. Whether you agree or disagree, all of the ESV translations you have cited are legitimate renderings of the texts. First, in Genesis 3:16, the word at issue is not the preposition אֵל but the Hebrew word for "desire" תְּשׁוּקָה - teshuqah). This is a very rare word that appears in the Old Testament only three times (Gen. 3.16, 4.7, Song 7.10). However, the use of the word in Genesis 3:16 is closely paralleled to its use one chapter later in Genesis 4:7, and that is the best place to look to figure out what it means in Gen. 3:16. In Genesis 3:16 Eve is told her desire will be for/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) her husband and he will rule over (מָשַׁל)her. In Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and that sin's "desire is for you/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) you, but you must rule over (מָשַׁל) it." Note the identical pairing of "desire" and "rule" in both passages. Whatever "desire" means in one it probably means in the other. Some would read the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as sexual desire, but that is impossible in Genesis 4:7 (not to mention that would make a woman's sexual desire for her husband a curse, which contradicts the rest of scripture). Instead, "desire for" in both passages seem to be the desire to overcome/control. This is certainly the best interpretation of Genesis 4:7 and makes the most sense in Genesis 3:16. Indeed, it has been argued that even the usage of the word (תְּשׁוּקָה) in Song of Solomon 7:10 conveys the desire to control/dominate in the man's desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman. Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83. I think the NET's rendering of Genesis 3:16 "you will want to control your husband" is probably the most accurate to meaning of the Hebrew, but the ESV's "your desire will be contrary to your husband" is still much better than the traditional "your desire shall be for your husband." Either way, the ESV reading is certainly justifiable and has scholarly research to support it. As an aside, I find Ben Witherington's take on gender issues unconvincing at best and intentionally biased at worst (likely as an outgrowth of trying to make the text fit his charismatic views, but that's another topic entirely). Second, to read the γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11-12 as female deacons seems to do violence to the natural reading of the text. To interpret it in this manner requires us to assume that Paul wrote 1. a series of qualifications for male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 2. a separate verse of qualification for female deacons in in 1 Timothy 3:11-2, followed by 3. a new qualification for only male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12. It's a very awkward way of reading the text that makes little to no logical sense. It's also very strange to me that you make such a big deal about "their" not being in the Greek when (as I'm sure you know) translators always supply words that are not in the original text for clarity and we could create a massive list for every translation in existence. Regarding Romans 16:1, there is nothing inconsistent in translating διάκονος as "servant" rather than "deacon" here, since it is frequently difficult to tell whether a formal office is meant in most of the New Testament use of the word. We can certainly find inconsistencies in how this word is rendered across translations. For instance, the Greek of Colossians 1:17 refers to Epaphras as a διάκονος, yet the NRSV renders the word as "minister" in that verse while rendering the same word as "deacon" in Romans 16:1. Turning to the famous example of Junias, the debate is certainly not closed on whether Junias is a male or female name. First, we do have examples of Greek Church Fathers who read the name as masculine ,such as the 4th century father Epiphanius. Notably, in his s Index discipulorum 125, Epiphanius not only described Junias as a man (as indicated by the masculine pronoun) but also provides a seemingly independent tradition that Junias became Bishop of Apameia in Armenia. While it is hard to say how much weight should be placed on this tradition, it does imply that Epiphanius was certainly not alone in understanding Junias as a man and that there appears to have been a larger ecclesiastical tradition regarding Junias' subsequent ministry. Aside from this witness, there is also the intriguing suggestion that Junias may have been an adhoc translation of the Hebrew name Yehunni. See Albert Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yehunni,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 397-408. However, assuming that Junias is a female name, the issue comes down to whether ἐπίσημος should be read in the comparative or elative sense. I quote the NET's footnote because I feel it expresses the issue best: "When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here." Personally, I find Burer and Wallace's survey of the extant Greek evidence convincing. I would also note that the 2020 update of the NASB agrees with the elative sense and renders the verse in question "outstanding in the view of the apostles." There are pros and cons to the renderings above, but they are all legitimate translation decisions rooted in defensible readings of the texts. To claim that the ESV has intentionally misread or mistranslated the verses in question is very unfair and deeply uncharitable. All translations have biases (and there are several translation choices I could critique in the ESV). However, you seem completely uninterested in understanding the debate surrounding these verses and far more interested in impugning the motives of the ESV translators.
Thanks for watching and for the thorough comment. To put it bluntly, the ESV team has openly admitted to their prejudice. You can find these details in my sources in the video description. Your appeal to scholarship and legitimate debates are always welcome, as I am a Bible scholar and that’s what we do often. That said, the choices the ESV makes are the minority position among scholars and when vetted are found wanting. And, the NET notes and translation that the ESV usually follows are also found wanting. The Gen 3:16 translation is certainly more complex than my video had time to address, but the scholarship that the NET uses to justify their change, which the ESV only followed in 2016, is not convincing. The NET and some commentators draw on an article that is significantly flawed and they ignore a much better article from the JBL in 2011 (which is one of the leading peer reviewed journals in the world). I will probably make a video on this, because I have gotten so many comments about this. So, in the next year, may make the video. Similarly, your mention of the Burer and Wallace article is straight from the NET notes as well. These notes, like the notes on Gen 3:16, when vetted also are found wanting. What is missing from that discussion is the follow up articles and books from other scholars debunking Wallace and Burer’s claims. Their arguments are also found to be significantly flawed. You can see that scholarship mentioned in my videos on women in ministry. At the end of the day, in the 1990’s people made a big deal about gender neutral language in the Bible, and feminism corrupting the Bible translation teams, and such, and so now we are left with translations teams and scholars trying to backwardly write women out of the text and argue the language supports their bad translations, when for centuries no one made these arguments (see my women in ministry videos). In fact, people who read and spoke Greek in the centuries after the NT understood Junia as an apostle. But, the NET notes won’t tell you that because they are seemingly just as slanted at the ESV, but a bit more honest because they at least give you their own one-sided argument. I may also make a video on the NET, but it will take more time and research, so I will have to wait on that until I finish writing my dissertation, haha. When I get time, I may come back to this comment and cite the articles that conflict with the NET and ESV position, but at the moment I have to get ready for church. Grace and peace! And thanks for watching.
@@biblegeekPhD I don't know man sounds like a "the vast majority of scholars and theologians throughout all of Christian history including today are wrong and I'm right" sorta vibe
Yeah, many older bible expositors knew Greek and Hebrew very well. Martin Luther used the Latin and German because of his background, but John Calvin exclusively, from many sources, used only the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament and you would assume he would have picked up on these “gender biases”, if not him than certainly his detractors. It seems more reasonable to conclude that this is a modern bias within the last few decades.
I think you miss something big when explaining your issue with the Genesis translation. It's that Gen 3:16 and 4:7 have very similar wording. The woman has a desire for her husband, and sin has desire for Cain. So the other time that the ESV uses contrary to instead of for is completely consistent with the context in 3:16. If we say sin has a desire for a person, we see that rightly as a something negative. Saying sin desires contrary to you seems like a fair reading here in Gen 4:7. But it is an almost identical phrasing to Gen 3:16. It obscures the obvious relevance of this to point out that 5000 other times they translate the word differently with only one exception, without noting that the one exception is crucial to our understanding of the passage.
I am well aware of the verse, as everyone and the brother leaves comments about it. Haha I was also well aware when making the video. I don’t address it because, what you have presented (which many think, so it’s understandable) is not how language, translation, and interpretation work. As you point out, “if we say sin has a desire for a person, we rightly see that as something negative.” However, this logic should not affect Gen 3:16. We should not say that a “woman’s desire for her husband, we right see that as something negative.” Of course sin desires for Cain something bad, but the hermeneutical choice to assert that the woman desires something bad for her husband is not justified. When you read a story, you would read chapter 3 before 4. As a result the statement in 3:16 would influence 4:7. The woman’s “desire for” is perfectly fine and neutral, good or not bad, but then in chapter 4, after the fall, we see the consequences of the fall, and sin has a negative desire for Cain. Sin has twisted the narrative and now acting with agency. And, as you point out, the Cain verse is understandable with “for” and that is because that is the appropriate translation choice. “Contrary to” is such a bogus translation that is only used to skew Gen 3:16, so much so that it only appears one other place. I am sorry, but that is just not good translation practice. There is a reason no one made this choice for, literally thousands of years, it’s because it’s not a legitimate choice. What’s tragic is, the translators have made the women about to be tantamount to sin … yikes. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD In fact, that exactly how both language and translation work. 1. Immediate context always colors how we view a person's word choice or phrasing, and 2. Similar constructions are often translated similarly, therefore 3. It is important to note, when emphasizing that there is only one other example of the ESV translating a word in a certain way, to point out that it was an exception that was very relevant to the case in point. As per your response, apparently "everyone and the brother" thinks so as well. 4. Translating "contrary to" certainly would need a language note, as it is making a choice of how to present the word here, but translators make such choices constantly. Nothing bogus about it. Thanks for responding.
"Known to" and "known among" are not necessarily different, at least in English. If I say "Einstein's field equations are well known among cosmologists" it does not imply that the equations *are* cosmologists. Same if I say that so and so is well known among the local law enforcement community. So and so could be a well known criminal and the sentence still works.
The problem is not the difference in English, it is the difference in Greek. Their choice does not represent the Greek, and this is demonstrated by the over 100 times the translate the Greek phrase correctly. Thanks for watching.
Yes, I imagine the NET is why they made the change. It is unfortunate that they did, because the NET's choice was based on old scholarship from the 1970's that had a narrow research scope. Meanwhile in 2011, a much more thorough article was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature that concludes much differently.
”Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.“ 1 Timothy 3:11-12 KJV
@@biblegeekPhD The KJV is not hard to read or understand if studied out with the teaching coming from the Holy Spirit. I have studied for years with the ESV, NASB95, NLT, NIV, and in the end, I fell back to the faithful KJV and the NKJV.
Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.
Great video, I am actually in shock to find out that the ESV edition had these distinctions. By the way 2 months ago I started learning Greek. But the original new testament bible is in Koine Greek. So if you learn Greek most likely you'll be learning it in Modern Greek. How far apart is koine Greek compared to Modern Greek. When I was looking at John versus 1 the only common words I noticed were logos and kai for and. My Greek isn't the greatest but how far apart is the Koine version compared to the modern version? Thank you.
Modern Greek and Koine Greek are not that far apart linguistically. A modern Greek person could read the GNT and understand it, most of the time. It would read like slightly older English than the KJV or something like that. That being said, there are definitely unique things about koine that should be learned. Glad you’re learning Greek! Good luck!
@@biblegeekPhD Hey! Thank you for the perspective. That is an excellent comparison. At the moment I am at an A2 level in Greek, hopefully in 6 months I will reach a B1 level, hopefully and thanks once again.
This video is quite misleading. For example, to people who don't know Greek, it can seem like the ESV added a possessive pronoun out of nowhere. However, this is something that is required by the English language. In Greek, possessive pronouns can be implied, but they can't in English, so when rendering the phrase in English, the possessive pronoun has to be supplied. This is basic to Koine Greek grammar and is done very frequently in all English translations. The video accuses the ESV of being disingenuous, but either the maker of this video doesn't have a good understanding of Greek or is himself being disingenuous. Similarly, prepositional phrases are the most difficult part of translating between any two languages. The way the ESV rendered it in both instances mentioned in this video are viable options, though they are debated. With the words διακονος and αποστολος, the video commits the fallacy known as "illegitimate totality transfer." These are words with multiple glosses in English and choosing the correct gloss depends on context. In both cases mentioned in the video, the ESV appears to me to have chosen the correct gloss, though it is debatable. Overall, this video treats the ESV quite unfairly, and people not trained in the original languages won't be able to spot the fallacies. The ESV among many others is a reliable translation of the Bible into English, and it is worthy of our trust. Sadly, people who watch this video will be left with the opposite impression.
There is no denying that many of its translators are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so there is legitimate bias present, even if that bias is supported by genuine scholarship. It's just as biased in one direction as the NRSV is biased in the opposite direction, which is why I'd recommend using them together rather than apart. (Granted, what translation isn't biased somehow?)
Hi Jared, thanks for watching and for your comment. :) I am actually a Greek professor, I have been reading Greek for over a decade, and I have an intimate knowledge of two different basic grammars that I have taught through multiple times. Neither grammar teaches that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. I wonder what basic grammar you learned that in. I also wonder what gave you that impression. Here are some thoughts. A word can be possessive if it is genitive and an English translator may add a possessive pronoun there sometimes (a possessive “s” or “of” also works), but that’s not an implied possessive pronoun, that’s a possessive genitive, and that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. Or maybe you have seen translators supply pronouns to verbs to communicate first or second or third person, that’s acceptable, but again, that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. So, when a pronoun is supplied in English, it has a syntactical or grammatical explanation. This one in 1 Tim 3:11 doesn’t. It’s not a possessive genitive or something else. Let’s also talk about my “Illegitimate totality transference.” That is when you import all potential meanings of a word into a single context. For me to have done this, I would have had to argue that the word should be translated “deacon AND servant” in each usage. I argued that it is understood as “deacon,” that’s only one gloss, and thus I have not fallen prey to an illegitimate totality transference. :) I am glad you know Greek. Seriously, keep up the great work. I only critique the ESV because it has multiple problems recognized by numerous scholars and I care that the Bible is faithfully translated and interpreted. I am by no means the first one to point this out. You’re welcome to check out the notable resources section in the video description.
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for the reply, but I'm surprised that you don't know what I am talking about when I say that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. Here are just a few examples: Ephesians 5:25, 1 Corinthians 7:13, Acts 10:34. In each of these examples, there is no possessive pronoun before wives, husband or mouth. However, if we don't add the possessive pronoun in English, the sentence becomes unintelligible. Also, thanks for the clarification on the ITT. That's probably not the right name for the fallacy you committed, but it is still fallacious to say that if a word frequently is glossed one way, it should always be glossed that way. Διακονος can and does mean servant and αποστολος can and does mean messanger. The challenge of translation is you have to make choices. In both these cases, the ESV made justifiable choices. It seems like you have a particular doctrinal perspective that you want to push, and you seem willing to damage Christians' trust in their ability to understand the Bible rightly for themselves in order to push your perspective. Please be very careful about that. God's Word is clear. No translation is perfect, but you don't have to know Greek and Hebrew in order to read God's Word.
Just had a look at my ESV - it has footnotes to outline the other possible translations - such as Deaconess for Roman’s 16 and “Or Wives likewise, or Women likewise” for 1 Timothy 3. The original meaning of diakonos from Roman’s 16 is a servant, attendant, minister. So it’s possible that it refers to either the formal role of deacon, or the simple version of servant. The best word for word translation therefore IS servant so I’d say in that circumstance the ESV is doing exactly what it set out to do. The good thing about the ESV is that it’s honest enough to give you all the options in the footnotes so you know there are other possibilities and then leaves you to attempt to choose the most appropriate definition.
Just to clarify, when a lexicon or interlinear gives a definition, it is just a gloss. It could be servant or attendant or minister or something else, we have to use context to determine what the best translation is. A consistent translator will translate word consistently in similar contexts. In this video I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the ESV. If in one context they choose servant or deacon, they should choose that in other similar contexts, but they don’t. That is the problem. Essentially, the use the term one way for women, and another way for men, but the contexts are similar, and thus they should be translated similarly. Also, the idea that there can be a literal word for word translation isn’t accurate to translation. Language is not like a simple math problem, and the translation choices will always have variation and difference. One word in Greek may take 3 words in English, and vis verse. So, saying a word literally means one thing is not really how translation works. It’s more like, these words work to gather to communicate this or that idea and we have to choose the words that best communicate that idea in a new language.
Christian translations of the scriptures have been wrong for centuries? That is the message I get from your video. I'm not going to start using the NRSV. The ESV is not my favorite translations, so I have no axe to grind. Woke Christianity disqualifies Christianity. I reject it.
Definitely every Bible translation team has its biases that will come through in the final product. The NRSV you cite (which I also use a lot) consistently gives translations that obscure traditional supports for high christology (as in Rom 9:5; Daniel 7:13, etc) - but it is still a decent translation. In all these cases, however (as with the ESVs use of “servant” in Rom 16 or “wives” in 1 Tim 3 - the rendering is technically correct, even if it may not exactly communicate the original meaning. That’s why it is always good to study with more than one translation. I think the ESV and NRSV are a good pairing precisely because the translations are so similar for the most part - those places where the “biases are showing” (on both sides) come through more clearly.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Indeed the NRSV also has its own problems. I only used the NRSV in parallel because they are both updates to the RSV. Glad you use multiple translations. :)
St Jerome translated Rom 16:1 as minister. He was closer in time to the early church to know what those categories meant. I think you are imposing your 21st century view on the text.
I didn’t have time to delve into that intricacies of the term, but I would agree that minister is another great way of translating the term. :) In my next video, I will be talking more about 1 Rom 16:1 and I will also talk about other patristic writers. So be sure to check that video out. Thanks for watching and commenting.
I disagree with Bible Geek on some points. The original text says "wives", ESV retained it as such while NRSV changed it to "women". The adding of "their" does not change the meaning but the changing of "wives" to "women" significantly alters the meaning of the text. Remember this text is talking about deacons and the fact they they have to be husbands of one wife. When it goes on to mention "wives", it is clearly referring to the wives of the deacons, thus "their" wives. Bible Geek clearly has an agenda and it is barely hidden. I would never encourage anybody to depend on NRSV for proper bible study. I have never had any serious believer recommend it. It is NRSV that has serious issues with it's deliberate agenda for "gender-neutral language". Take for instance this passage in Psalms 8. In ESV it is rendered as " what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor" NRSV renders it as, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor." NRSV not only changes the nouns to plural but also makes them gender neutral. More troubling is that the term "son of man" is rendered as mortals. We no that "Son of Man" is a Messianic title and to replace it with "mortals" is to subtly attack the divinity of Christ. There are far more problems with NRSV and I don't encourage any believer to use it for bible study.
The Greek word can be translated as either woman or wife. The choice of the NRSV and similar translations to make 3:11 general about “women” is justifiable. Essentially, v. 11 is switching from talking about men Deacons, to now “in the same way, women must be dignified …” So, scholars have translated it that way because of linguistic and contextual reasons. You’re welcome to disagree, but there are legitimate reasons for the translation. Also, while the NRSV is not perfect, it is actually the translation used in academic circles, those who study the Bible professionally. For example, the Society of Biblical Literature Study Bible is a NRSVue. The study notes are all done by world class Bible scholars. Moreover the Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also NRSV. I should add, many of the scholars who work on these study bibles are “serious believers,” and many are even clergy. So, many serious believers actually use the NRSV for serious Bible study. While I am not some NRSV advocate, it is a fine translation, just like many others. Thanks for watching.
Did you watch the end of the video where I recommend using multiple translations? The NRSV is placed in parallel to the ESV, not because it is superior, but because it is an update to the RSV like the ESV. And, while I can read Greek and Hebrew, most can’t, so I needed another translation a to discuss the issues with the ESV. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Non-greek-reader here. In Bible college, I was taught (hopefully, correctly) that the word "deacon" is an English transliteration of the Greek word "διακονέω" (i.e., the English translators made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters), but it is correctly translated "servant". It appeared that the early church created a special class of official servants called... SERVANTS! (or, deacons). I was also taught (again, hopefully, correctly) that when the translators came to the Greek word βαπτίζω, ("baptizo"), they didn't translate it because of disputes over whether it should be translated "immerse", "sprinkle", "pour" or something else, so, again, they made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters, hence "baptize".
You can see more my thoughts on the word deacon in my videos on women in ministry. There I talk more about its translation. I was also taught something similar about baptize, but I have never looked into it as an academic. I will say, the word deacon is used liberally to encompass a whole host of bathing actions, whether they be full immersion or something else. And, in the didache, and early Christian text, actually explains baptism in the early church, and they recognized a whole host of methods (read here about it www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html) (read the text here www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html).
While I certainly appreciate the time you took to make this video and to point out some of the things that stand out as flawed in the ESV, I'll simply say that from a simple layperson's point of view, I think Satan is using all of the differences in different Bible translations to divide the church, and to distract us from what really matters. Specifically to Romans 16:3, we're talking about a personal greeting from Paul. I am really struggling to find anything in this verse that matters to me personally, and can be used to apply to my life from a spiritual perspective. With regards to memorization of Bible verses. Well, I grew up reading the Good News Bible back in the 70's and 80's. I came back to the church in the 90's and used the NIV. Then the NIV isn't good anymore, because they updated the 1984 version to something else, so now I need to use the NKJV. The church I was attending 10 years ago used the HCSB. Now my pastor uses the ESV. I mean, what's next when someone decides two obscure words in the ESV that don't match a Biblical worldview of the interpreter? And you are comparing it to the NRSV? I don't know anyone using the NRSV for various reasons. What is concerning to me is that I am wasting time watching videos like this, and distracting myself from hearing from God on what truly matters. Sure, we absolutely need to make sure that the translations of the Bible are accurate and relay the message that God wants us to hear. But I honestly think we're splitting hairs and wasting time away from where we should be spending our time and attention to.
I also find the debating of Bible translations to be a serious distraction used to divide. You won’t find me debating which translation is better of something like that. The reason I chose to make this video is because these issues have real consequences and demonstrate a consistent goal: obscuring texts that could be used to support women in leadership and other related topics. The verses surveyed in this video demonstrate that the ESV’s aim was not only to translate the Bible, it was to also support a predetermined theology. That is not how translation is supposed to work. Imagine with me you grew up your whole life believing that Gen 3:16 shows that women disobeying their husbands was a consequence of the fall “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall krule over you.” This verse comes as one of the curses that is presented after the fall, and the woman is depicted as being obstinate and contrary to her husband. Thus, women’s rightful place is not being contrary to her husband. And yet, virtually every other translation actually depicts the woman in a positive light.” Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And he will rule over you.” (NASB) here the woman desires her husband, and tragically, instead of desiring her back, he dominates and rules her. This reveals the patriarchy and male domination is a result of the fall, not women’s contrariness. The ESV has changed one small word, and it results in a completely different outcome, and one that harms women and men. I, for one, think this kind of thing matters a lot, and people should be aware of it. If you watched to the end of the video, I lift up reading multiple translations, and indicate that no translation is perfect. I stand by that. The ESV is one voice in the choir of voices. If the ESV is singing a song, some of its notes change the tune, in subtle ways, but those subtitles change the song, and it detracts from the completed result. Anyway, thanks for watching and commenting.
great reply. as a "newer" christian looking to find the best bible for me, i can't help but wonder maybe all these KJV fanatics are on to something. why would God make it so difficult to pick a bible? that just seems odd to me and not fair. how can every bible be flawed? why would He do that? @@biblegeekPhD
People are likely to latch onto the familiar. For instance, the best way to translate John 3:16 starts with, not "For God so loved the world" but "For this is the way God loved the world". There IS a difference, but translators know that if they don't do it in the familiar fashion, nobody will buy the Bible or use it anyway... sad... This translation was created to appeal to a market, not to be an accurate 21st century English translation... at all. All you need to know about the supposedly new translation called the ESV is revealed in the copyright info. It is "adapted from" the RSV, not a new translation at all. They licensed the RSV and made it appealing to the complementarian, patriarchal base that was angry about the TNIV. And frankly, Crossway created this translation as a reaction against "inclusive language" (and other concerns) in other modern translations (too bad, because inclusive language is actually the correct way to translate into 21st century English). Their traditionalist agenda made it impossible for them to practice any kind of intellectual rigor with regard to translation, already deciding beforehand how they would translate, in essence... rendering the translation useless or worse to any serious student or preacher of Scripture.
The ESV does not deliberately skewer the text; it largely falls in line with the tradition of the King James Bible and adopts most of the methods of translation. I feel you bring a bias to the other translation examples, which cast the ESV in the wrong light. Everyone agrees 1 Tim chapter 3 is written in the context of "the office" of a deacon, as it does for an Bishop/Overseer (επισκοπος), but you avoided mentioning that. It also represents a later structure in the church than Romans 16:1, which is why some critics reject Timothy as Pauline. The other example of Romans 16:7 can easily be translated either way; to say that it's because it's in the dative case does not change the translation. First context, Andronicus and Junia(n) were Paul's kinfolk and "apostles" in Christ before him. If they were in the church before Paul, they would have been Jewish and not Gentile. So, how likely was it then to have an ordained female apostle within the Jewish patriarchy? Afterward, The phrase "εν τοις αποστολοις"can very easily be translated "to the apostles", just as when Paul says in 1 Gal 1:16 "that I might preach him (Christ) εν τοις εθνεσιν (to the Gentiles)". It's often translated "among", however "to the gentiles" does not change the meaning. The best argument for Junia as a female apostle does not come from the grammar, but the testimony of St. John Chrysostom.
Thanks for watching and for leaving a comment. The ESV is actually supposed to be an update of the RSV, so it’s not really in “the tradition of the KJV.” You can see this story detailed in Perry’s article in the video description. I am well aware of the arguments about 1 Tim, authorship, and ecclesial structure. I didn’t have space to discuss any of that. The goal was simply to point out the inconsistencies in translation choices. I would argue that Rom 16 is presenting people in similar positions to what is described in 1 Tim. I do plan on making a video series about women in the Bible and women in ministry, so look out for those. The best argument for Junia being a woman is that every manuscript has Junia, so there are none with a man’s name. There was a theory concocted in the 1800’s that argued that this name was a contraction of the masculine Junias … but there isn’t good evidence for this. So, church history and manuscript evidence support Junia being a woman. I would suggest reading the book mentioned in the video by Epp on the subject. Or if you want an overview, see the article by Belleville in the video description. Additionally, Belleville explains why the εν prepositional phrase should not be translated “to.” I find your mention of Gal 1:16 interesting because the ESV there translates it “among.” Anyway, thanks for your comment and watching. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text.
@@biblegeekPhD I'm sure you agree the RSV is a revision of the KJV. Just a note, yes the ESV translates Gal; 1:16 as "among" by nuance of language, but not exclusive to the meaning of "to the".
Well, the RSV was actually a revision of the ASV. I mean, basically all modern English Bible are standing on the shoulders of the KJV. So, associating the ESV with the KJV isn’t that significant. That said, the KJV translates Rom 16:7 and also Gal 1:16 great. The ESV’s choices I highlight in the video, not so much. Thanks for commenting and chatting. :)
I’m seeing comments suggesting the gentlemen in the video “has malice” and “an agenda”. It blows me away that anyone could think such nonsense. He is sharing an opinion and if you actually listen to what he is saying you will find that he is innocently presenting a juxtaposition of translation. You may disagree with his view but it’s quite cruel the way some of you are going about it. Act your faith not your sin
Doesn’t seem like much a difference, until people start arguing that they weren’t apostles based on that translation. So I guess pennies of difference add up over time. Haha. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)
@@toddthacker8258 Paul's explanation suggest that, and early church interpretation also suggests that. This is why Dr. Lin confidently explains in her 2020 JBL article that, “All grammatical, morphological, and historical evidence … point to a prominent woman apostle named Junia. In the context of Paul’s emphatic and sometimes strident defense and his claims of unique apostleship and authority, we can confidently understand Junia as an apostle before Paul.”(Lin, “Junia: An Apostle before Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature (2020) 139 (1): 209).
@@biblegeekPhD Are we talking about a different type of apostle? Because as far as I know Andronicus wasn't an apostle either, if we're talking about the small group of 12 + Paul.
@@toddthacker8258 the 12 + Paul isn't what Paul claims constitutes "apostle." 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul explains that Jesus "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." So here Paul mentions that apostles being broader than the 12 + Paul because he has already mentioned the 12, and then he adds James and all the other apostles. The implication is that an apostle was more than the 12 + Paul. This is why John Chrysostom says in the 4th century, “Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle.”
1. The ESV doesn't claim to be "Word for word" Crossways states this in its description of the ESV. "It embraces a word-for-word, or 'essentially literal,' translation philosophy. The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks, as far as possible, to reproduce the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer." 2. The only literal, word for word English language Bible I have ever found it "Young's Literal Translation". It is extremely difficult to read. 3. I like the ESV because it is one of the few English Bibles that incorporate the texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls wherever possible. 4. I agree, you should always use multiple Bibles when doing serious Bible study OR just buy Logos software.
Hi, thanks for your comment and for watching. To point 1, if you weren’t aware, the language displayed in the video is from the ESV/crossway website. So I am specifically using their language. Point 2, as a Greek professor, I actually don’t think any translation can ever be “literal” or “word-for-word.” I do think a translation can accurately represent the text, but that won’t be word for word, and there is a lot of variability in that representation. I think the ESV overstates it’s aims, and then doesn’t live up to them. Further, in the places I point out, they are not accurately representing the text. Point 3, the ESV is not the only English translation that incorporates that kind of text critical information. Most modern English Bibles will pull from that info. To point 4, yes, a Bible software is helpful. I prefer Accordance, but Logos has many strengths. If I was more tech savvy, I would use Logos, but I find accordance so much more user friendly. Thanks for you comment :)
The Rom 16:7 translation is correct. I suggest paper "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7 by Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace" (available online) "In sum, our examination of epij shmo~ v with both genitive modifiers and ejn plus dative adjuncts has revealed some surprising results - surprising, that is, from the perspective of the scholarly consensus. Repeatedly in biblical Greek, patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic texts, our working hypothesis was borne out. The genitive personal modifier was consistently used for an inclusive idea, while the (ejn plus) dative personal adjunct was almost never so used. Yet to read the literature, one would get a decidedly different picture. To say that ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostovloi~ ‘can only mean “noteworthy among the apostles” ’ is simply not true. It would be more accurate to say that ‘ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostoloi~ v almost certainly means “well known to the apostles”.’ Thus Junia, along with Andronicus, is recognized by Paul as well known to the apostles, not as an outstanding member of the apostolic band."
yeah, their article is noted in the NET. I have read it. However, what the ESV and NET blatantly ignore is the whole host of articles and even books that refute Burer and Wallace’s claims, grammatically and historically. Burer and Wallace (B&W) make some claims that are novel and cannot be sustained when you look beyond their selective evidence. In other words, the reason grammarians before B&W hadn't proposed what they propose in 2001 is because their position cannot be sustained. Here is what Belleville wrote in a response article: "Although Burer and Wallace argue for an exclusive rendering of ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘well-known to the apostles’), all patristic commentators attest to an inclusive understanding (‘prominent among the apostles’). The simple fact is that if native, educated speakers of Greek understood the phrase to be inclusive and Ἰουνίαν [Junia] to be feminine, the burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. Indeed, the burden of proof has not been met. Not even reasonable doubt has been established, for all the extra-biblical parallels adduced support an inclusive understanding. The sole basis is a theological and functional predisposition against the naming of a woman among the first-century cadre of apostles. Much work has been done by socio-historians in the last two decades that shows the wide-ranging roles of women in first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. First-century Greco-Roman inscriptions, papyri, and statuary show that women under Roman law enjoyed far more freedoms and privileges than has tra- ditionally been supposed. These privileges ranged from equal ownership and dis- posal of property, the right to terminate a marriage, and sue for child support and custody, to make a will, hold office (both political and religious), swear an oath, and give testimony." (Ἰουνίαν ... ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials NTS 51 [2005] 231-249). And more articles and books have come out after Bellville confirming the flaws of B&W's arguments. It's unfortunate that the NET and ESV accepted their proposal, as it doesn't actually stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Moreover, it is even more unfortunate that the NET incorporates it into their notes, as their notes claim to be rigorous scholarly support, but in the case of Rom 16:7, it is sadly very selective scholarship that merely confirms their choice and ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their choice.
@@biblegeekPhDExcept it does stand the scrutiny. Michael Burer published his answer to these critiques, backed by further research, where he demonstrates: (1) The argument and evidence from our original article withstands critique. (2) Seventy-one new texts demonstrate that Paul could have readily used … the genitive [rather than the dative] to show that Andronicus and Junia were “notable among the apostles.” (3) Thirty-six new texts, all but one of which parallel Rom 16:7 exactly in grammatical structure, provide further evidence that Paul intended … to mean that Andronicus and Junia were “well known to the apostles.” (Michael Burer, ἘΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ ἘΝ ΤΟΙΣ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΙΣ In Rom 16:7 As “Well Known To The Apostles”: Further Defense And New Evidence. JETS 58 (2015).
Yeah, I have also read that article. It also doesn’t stand up to critique. The article I cite in my “can women lead churches” video is another response from 2020. The fact of the matter is, Wallace and Burer are in the minority here. Their proposal is unique and they are using grammar to justify a reading that native Greek speakers wouldn’t even accept. Not to mention that no one had ever considered this for 2000 years. You’re welcome to accept their conclusions, but there is an overwhelming body of evidence stacked against them.
ปีที่แล้ว +5
Just found the channel, and for it being a small one (for now) the production value is up there with the rest of them that are well-established. I subscribed and encourage you to keep up the good work. Excited to see what's ahead. (Also, great verse, Rom 16:7, to start things with in the video. I absolutely agree with you even if most denominations would skin me alive for it.)
Thank you so much for watching and for your kind words of encouragement and for subscribing. I am really enjoying making these videos, and I have many more videos planned. :)
Feel free to look at the resources in the video description. Many of the suggested resources will go into more detail. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
If you read the note on Gen.3:16 in the ESV Study Bible, you would understand that they are explicitly highlighting the conflict between man and women that rose as result of the fall. Clearly not an attempt to change God's word in favor of men. Concerning all your other comments: ESV appears to be very consistent with KJV, and NKJV (at least), while it seems that you are trying to make a point in favor of NRSV 🙂
Thanks for this video! What is the other cases mentioned? (Thinking about the 1 other time they translated en tois as "to" an not "among"? Thanks! (and if you posted this somewhere and I missed it, my apologies)
The ESV Interlear Looks like the cleanest interlinear that I have seen. This question is regarding that. Do the original words show first before their completey theological changed translation? Words original "among" and in complete translation "known to"?
Hi, thanks for your question! I am not sure I am understanding the question. Could your rephrase it. I don’t have the ESV interlinear so if your asking if the ESV interlinear has “among” or “known to” I wouldn’t know. (though I imagine it is a nice looking and feeling book because Crossway knows how to make Bible that are nice)
The ESV is hardly unique in its handling of these verses. Romans 16.1 reads "servant" in the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, CSB, NET, CEB, MEV, and LSB (cf. TEV "who serves"). You can write most of those translations off as "conservative," but not the CEB. Romans 16.7 describes Junia as "known to the apostles" (or with similar wording) in the CEV, CSB, NET, NASB 2020, and LSB. Beyond that, Andronicus and Junia are referred to as "men" in the KJV, NKJV, NJB, and MEV. The variant Junias is used in the ASV, RSV, and NASB 1995; it is noted in the margin of the TEV, NRSV, and NLT. 1 Timothy 3.11 reads "wives" in the KJV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, CSB, NET, and MEV. Genesis 3.16 in the ESV 2016 follows the interpretation offered by scholar Susan Foh, whose work has also influenced the translation of this verse in the NLT and NET.
Susan Foh’s article is very dated and has numerous flaws. I imagine you have seen it cited in the NET. It is unfortunate because it’s not good scholarship. Maybe in the future I will make a video on the verse and dive deeper into the Hebrew. There is a much better article from 2011 that was published in the JBL, one the the best academic Bible journals, that is much better. Thanks for watching.
@@biblegeekPhD I've actually read Foh's article. I strongly disagree with its conclusions based on the parallel passage in Song 7.10, but it's not fair to dismiss an article from the Westminster Theological Journal out of hand simply because it isn't produced by the SBL.
I have also read the article. I actually considered going to Westminster at one point, even visited campus, so I am not adverse to Westminster. Foh’s argument is limited in scope and makes sweeping conclusions about the language with a very small data set. Meanwhile, the JBL article actually studies the same word with a much larger data set. If you want to read that article, I can get you the info when I get back to my computer.
@@biblegeekPhD I assume you're talking about the article "Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תשןקה." While I don't agree with the decision to follow Foh in translating Genesis 3.16, it's worth noting that no major translation has followed Lohr thus far, unless you count translations of the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate as "following Lohr," as his whole argument is based on an ancient Greek gloss and the other ancient versions that mimicked it. The CSB, RNJB, NASB 2020, LSB, and NRSVue all postdate the article, but they completely ignore it, even in the margin. So too the 2015 edition of the NLT and (obviously) the 2016 edition of the ESV. Admittedly, there is the also-ran ISV that agrees with Lohr: "I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.” Time will tell if others eventually follow. (After all, it took Foh a long time to make it to the margin of the 1996 NLT, and it was even longer before the NET put it in the main text.)
The “original” documents do not exist. All we have are copies of copies, anytime someone tells you “in the original” text it says this or that, they are deceiving you.
When scholars refer to the “original” they are referring, not to the original written author’s text, but the what scholars believe is the original based on modern textual criticism. Correct, we don’t have the original documents. That said, when it comes to the NT, a majority of scholars recognize that we know what the original author’s text said, the variants in the MSS make up less than 5% of the text. And, many of them are minor spelling differences, word order changes (which don’t matter much in Greek), and so on. And, the NT documents are the best attested ancient documents from the ancient world. We have thousands of manuscripts, hundreds in the first thousand years of church history. So, when people come saying all we have is copies of copies, what they overlook is other ancient texts like Homer or Seneca or whateve have very few ancient manuscripts. So, yes, we have copies of copies, but that’s actually very unique. Most other ancient text are not very well attested. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD The ESV bible was produced using the corrupt Wescott and Hort New Testament. They purposely created a new greek testament to replace the Textus Receptus, relying on just two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These disagree with each other and with the untold thousands of Ancient Greek manuscripts that we have today. One was “discovered” in the late 1400’s in the Vatican library and the other was found in a rubbish bin at a Roman Catholic monastery in 1844. Do you actually believe that the Word of God was hidden for over 1400 years and that the Roman Catholic “church” was in possession of the only two reliable manuscripts?
So, whoever told you this, was wrong. The ESV is not based on Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament. Crossways explains on their website that it is based on "the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland" (www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-esv-translation/#:~:text=The%20ESV%20is%20based%20on,%2C%202012)%2C%20edited%20by%20Nestle). These Greek New Testaments are, the Greek text I spoke of in the pervious comment, based modern textual criticism. They look at the thousands of Greek manuscripts, and choose the reading that is most likely the original. And they actually disagree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all over the place, because they utilize all the manuscripts at their disposal. Now, Crossway did come out with their own GNT based on Wescott and Hort, and that is available on their website, but that is not what they used for the ESV, as it came out after the ESV's most recent update. That said, even that text disagrees in places with the manuscripts you mentioned, as they also use a criteria for determining which variant to choose. And, that project began as an update to Wescott and Hort, and became something different. All can be read in their introduction to the Tyndale GNT.
@@biblegeekPhD And what did Nestle use as a basis for their New Testament. And the United Bible Society, it’s been corrupted since the beginning of the 20th century. Why do they need to keep updating and correcting their versions? Textual criticism? Improving the grammar is one thing, eliminating verses and or words is at the core of so called textual criticism.
@FAODayTripper as I said in my previous comments the UBS uses all the texts at their disposal: manuscripts, early church fathers, early translations. You realize that these texts agree with the TR more than they disagree, right? And, the TR is essentially the Byzantine tradition, which is relied on and appealed to all the time in critical GNTs. It takes a lot of evidence for scholars to change an agreed upon reading. They are constantly updating and changing things because more manuscripts are found, new insights on those texts are made, and arguments about the choices made change minds and opinions, and so on. Humans are not perfect, and even the best make mistakes, and thus new versions are needed. And the core of textual criticism is not "eliminating verses and words" it's finding the original text and understanding how these texts have been transmitted and copied throughout the centuries. Despite what many people say, text criticism is done by many faithful scholars.
I do not compare the ESV to the NRSV. The NRSV is used in this video as a reference translation for those who don’t know the original languages. I chose to use the NRSV because both the NRSV and ESV are updates to the RSV. All my comments are based on the ESV not accurately representing the Greek or Hebrew.
It was well known that the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition was going to be published in 1995 in England. This really got the complementarians going in the U.S. They searched for an existing bible that would allow them to revise the text. Their intention from the onset was to push their complementarian agenga in the text. So, the RSV was revised and the result was the ESV.
They nail the Genesis 3:16 translation. I can't recall which update they made that change in. They also give the alternate translation in a note. The NET Translation notes can help you out.
There is a reason very few English translation are like the ESV, it’s a poor choice. The ESV made the change in 2016, after the NET presented their translation. I am aware of the NET note, and it is significantly flawed. To the average reader, the note looks like a scholarly vetted choice. To a Bible scholar, it’s a bunch of red flags. The NET cites an article from the 70’s that is dated, not an academic peer reviewed journal, and the article is significantly flawed. Meanwhile the NET and ESV ignore the recent work on Gen 3:16 in the JBL (a world renown academic journal) that contradicts the article from the 70’s, and their translation. Essentially the NET presents a one sided argument that looks like rigorous scholarship, but it is actually ignoring biblical scholarship. I plan to make a video in this in the future, so if you are interested, subscribe to be notified when that comes out. But it will be likely next summer, as I need to finish my PhD dissertation first.
I appreciate your other translation objections. Every translation has bias and the ESV is without exception. But it's interesting that you can speak so definitively about a translation decision that is highly debated and is not settled in all of the scholarship, as you suggest in Genesis 3:16. I was simply pointing out that your argument is not compelling. The extra little "scholar" resume in your response doesn't make your argument better. If you make a video on the topic, my point is to come up with a better argument. Your current one is weak. When the ESV includes an alternate translation in a note, you should note that as well. It's a debated issue for a reason. You should not speak so definitively when the word is used three times, and personally, the connection to Genesis 4 is more compelling than a sexual reference. @@biblegeekPhD
Only thing this video confirmed is that the liberal Woke crowd doesn't approve of the ESV translation of the Bible, which makes me love my ESV even more. The ESV version is entirely consistent with cultural norms of the time in both the Roman and Jewish communities, and also the Apostle Paul's own words claiming that it's improper for women to even speak at church.
@@biblegeekPhDbro, look at Gen 4:7 and have ears to hear. Is God telling Cain that sins desire is going to be desiring Cain in a good way? Well the language is identical to 3:16
There are many reasons that Gen 4:7 can simply be “desire for you.” If you look basically every translation before the NET and ESV, you will find they agree with me. That said, I will elaborate a little. First, in Gen 4:7 the desire is “for” you in the sense that a beast desires to eat (BDB lexicon). It is “good” for the beast but “bad” for the prey. Second, narratives read beginning to end, not the other way around. The reading you propose is one that reads Gen 4 into Gen 3, but it should be the other way around. Gen 3 happens, the woman desires her husband, but tragically in the fallenness of sin, he rules over her. Amid this tragedy, then in chapter 4, her own child does not “rule over” sin, but instead sin consumes him, and he kills his own brother. He disobeys God, and he does not rule over sin, but his own family … just like a husband ruling over his wife, Cain rules over Abel. The language is similar between these two passages, but chapter 3 influences 4. This is why for centuries English Bible have translated this as a simple “for.”
@@biblegeekPhD thanks for the thoughts. Now please consider the following: 1. Actually for centuries, the reading was "to your husband" not "for your husband" (see KJV). 2. You don't always interpret ancient narrative for left to right. You sometimes interpret the unclear from the clear. This is an example. The language is IDENTICAL and in Gen 4, it's clear that the sin's "desire for (or to) Cain" is a desire to destroy, not a desire to love or connect with or something. Notice how when you refer to Gen 4, you have to change the wording to fit your interpretation, but it doesn't need to be changed. There are plenty of examples of interpreting something from the earlier part of a story by what comes after because of the clarity. For example, Numbers 13 and the nephilim add clarity to the strange sentence of Gen 6 ("in those days and afterward")
The newer NIV revision says “Junia” and my study Bible even calls out explicitly that it’s a feminine name, while also providing more details about the history of this issue. It seems to be treated very well now.
According to professor Maurice Robinson, textual critic, scholar and editor of the Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon, 15% of the NIV is non-biblical. That is a lot of addition to Holy Writ.
@@TheBinaryWolf I would love to know how Robinson came to such a precise figure. When I compare the NIV to the original languages, I don't see a bunch of stuff added. Rather, I see a translation that is trying to communicate in simple English, and sometimes the Bible isn't simple, so they miss the mark. That said, I think it is an overstatement to say they have added 15% to the text. I don't even know how one would come to such a figure, because translation isn't a quantitative kind of thing. Translation isn't math, translation is interpretation.
As a fellow bible translation nerd, what I’ve discovered over the years is that every translation (even the NRSV as your contrast) have their own deck that they play with. These days, I don’t mind when a translation picks a side, but I want to know why. As long as the argument isn’t pure theological bias-it often isn’t believe it or not- I’m cool with it. This is why I love the NET notes, even though I don’t love how the translation reads, it’s great to get extensive footnotes that go into these topics. The LSB is slowly releasing translator notes as well which is nice. With that in mind, I do want to point out just a couple of things: 1.) The ESV didn’t update Gen. 3.16 to “contrary” until it’s 2016 edition. Which means the translation existed for 15 years using the traditional rendering “for”. The first translations to adopt this were the NLT and the NET, yet I don’t hear anyone giving them flak for it. Lol. There is a great discussion to be had around this change so I encourage everyone to dig into it as it serves both as a point of consistency with the usage of the word in Gen. 4:7 and the “contrary” reading is actually the affirmation of a woman’s opinion on the topic, one Susan T. Foe who wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal in the 1970s I believe called “The Desire of the Woman” 🤔) 2.) When it comes to Phoebe not being referred to as a “deacon”, it should be noted that the ESV also doesn’t refer to Epaphras as a deacon in Col.1:7. Both are referred as “servants” despite the Greek word being present for both. It’s understandable that a section about the role of deacons would maintain the word, but to use that as a contrast for Romans 16:1 might be a poor comparison. “Servant” is also a classical rendering as it appears in both the Geneva Bible (1599) and the KJV (1611). The ESV mentions in the preface that it wants to exist in the line of the KJV which makes sense given that a text based on the RSV which renders as “deaconess” would make this change to more closely align with the KJV instead. Seems more like a classical approach rather than a complementarian approach. 3.) Lastly, your argument about the footnotes in the ESV about junia, in my opinion, is a moot point as they’re footnotes and not in the text itself, which is a translations way of saying that what is in the text is the better option. Simply acknowledging other possibilities is just honest, especially in the case of junia/junias. There is at least a history there that should be acknowledged. So I did find it interesting that you made an entire point on a footnote when the ESV actually picked the historical reading in favor of Junia. This was something the LSB and NASB2020 corrected, thankfully, because the NASB77/95 (If I’m correct) was the only main line protestant translation that rendered Junias. 4.) I do agree with your point about adding pronouns to bend a passage (which is why the NRSV shouldn’t be used as the poster child here my friend 😉), but the ESV is not alone in rendering this as wives, (CSB, NET, NLT, KJV, NKJV) and as previously mentioned, this does more closely re-align the ESV with the KJV. “Even so must their wives be grave…” The NET has a fascinating footnote on this topic. It’s a highly contextual rendering and probably should not be used as a definitive knock against the ESV. To conclude my soap box 😅 I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but I disagree that the ESV is overtly trying to force a complementarian view point here. Something that I can’t confidently say about the NRSV and the CEB and their bent toward the egalitarian perspective.
Thanks for your civil dialogue. I really appreciate it. To your very last point about the ESV not pushing an agenda, you should really look into the sources in my video description, they detail it very well. There is ample evidence for this exact thing, well beyond translations. Like interviews with editors talking about liberals and gender in the Bible, editors and contributors being all men, and more. To point 3, yes the footnotes are minor, but with the Junias footnote, it should at least say something like, some translations. Their note makes it seem like it is a manuscript difference, but it isn't, it is a translation problem. There is a whole bunch in the Epp book that unpacks this. So, their footnote is misleading and not representative of modern scholarship or the Greek texts. To point 4, I chose the NRSV as the companion in they video because the NRSV and the ESV are both updates to the RSV, so they are related translations. That said, I think those other translations have missed the mark as well, but I wasn't talking about them so I didn't specifically address it. As I said in the video, no translation is perfect. Point 2 is a really fair critique. I was going for maximum impact, and wanted to show how this inconcistency of translating διάκονος creates problems that limits women, and men for that matter. I decided to discuss it with 1 Tim specifically because I also wanted to talk about the addition of the pronoun, so it was a natural connection. As I said in the video, other translations have the same problem with διάκονος and its cognates, even the NRSV in places. I agree with Nijay Gupta's recent work, "Tell Her Story" that the term should be translated something like "ministry provider" or something like that. That way we avoid the modern day ecclesial office and still communicate that these people were doing ministry. Servant just doesn't cut it for what we know about the term and how it is used. You should definitely check out Gupta's work. Very well done. Point 1, I have read the article you mentioned. It's unfortunate that people keep referring to that article, probably because of the NET note. It is outdated, one-sided, and very limited in its research. Like, it is actually surprising that article is cited in things because it is so limited in scope. There is a much more recent study published in JBL 2011 that looks into the same word, but it studies like, everything: Dead Sea scrolls, rabbinic exegesis, early church reception and more (Lohr, Joel N. 2011. “Sexual Desire?: Eve, Genesis 3:16 and תשוקה” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2): 227-46.). Lohr concludes very differently than Foh, and it is also in a world class peer reviewed journal, like one of the best. In fact, Lohr's article may be worth making a video on because, despite being one of the world's top journals, its conclusions don't seem to have made it into any Bibles. That said, Foh's article is not a good representation of scholarship on the word, and her conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when one actually considers the content of the article. And, although we have more access to things like the Dead Sea scrolls and such today, her article definitely should have incorporated other things to prove her point even back in the 70's, and it doesn't. So, her article is significantly lacking. Anyway, thanks for the friendly dialogue. Peace.
It is important to note that “contrary to” in Genesis 3:16 is only in the latest update to the ESV in 2016. All ESV bibles since 2001 up to 2016 would not have this reading.
I always tell people to look at multiple translations. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing . I made this specific video on the ESV because it is becoming one of the most popular translations, and as a translation it has a noticeable and significant bias that makes intentional changes passages that are unjustified. Moreover, I don’t talk about this in the video, but the goals of the translation were born out of those biases against women. You can see that history chronicled in the Samuel Perry article. Thanks for your questions and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD from what you said in the video, I respect the ESV even more. But, I am biased to the complimentarian view of church roles, as Adam preceded Eve and Adam is blamed for the fall throughout the New Testament, not Eve. The fall is Adam's, not Eve's, yet she initiated it. Or, is this Bible story and New Testament record on women's roles based upon a patriarchal myth?
@@studiodemichel If a doctrine or a bias is the result of a wrong translation, or worse, a deliberately wrong translation then it is worthy of zero respect and upholding it is hardly praiseworthy, especially if you proclaim to the world that "Thy word is truth" John 17:17.
May I recommend the NKJV, based on Nestle's text. I am a Bible translator and assure you no translation is fully faithful. The smoother the English, the greater the sacrifice of theology. That virtually no attention has been paid to NT Greek grammar--often communicating as much as the lexals--is a tragedy. But even if it were unnecessay to translate Holy Writ, people will still eisogete (read into) and ot exegete (draw out the Auther's intent). Indeed, if men were more objective, denominations would not exist. If Mt.16:18,19 were correctly translated, Catholicism would not exist.
You make an interesting points but I think this is one of those things that I would like to hear the other side of the opinion. What would an ESV scholar say in response.? Only then could your audience come to a more fair conclusion. I mean perhaps they translated this way because of what we know about the culture at that time. I do not know.
Thanks for watching and commenting. A couple of these choices are noted in the NET, and that gave the ESV the gusto to change their translation in their updates, specifically the Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:7. You can read the notes on those verses in the NET to see what they reference. If you do look at those notes, the NET “scholarly notes” on those verses are straw man arguments, and they ignore opposing views. So, they present their choice like it is vetted by scholarly articles, but those articles are one sided, sometimes lacking substantial peer review, and the leave out the responses to those articles, or newer articles that argue differently on top peer reviewed scholarly journals. All that said, the NET notes on those verses look like scholarly opinions to non scholars, but to other scholars, they are noticeably flawed. The novel choices of the ESV and NET are new and novel because they ignore basic grammar and syntax, and the scholars who support their conclusions have been heavily critiqued. There is a reason that for centuries no one made the choices they made, it’s because it misrepresents the original language.
I am reborn again Christian and I am confused on what Bible translation I should get. I have the KJV and I was gifted the NLT but I am not sure about the NLT as it seems too thought for thought. And the KJV is too hard for me to read. Any suggestions?
If you want a good study Bible, I would recommend the SBL Study Bible (www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-Society-Biblical-Literature/dp/0062969439). It has study notes from world class Bible scholars.
Read ESV or NASB 1995 for more of a literal word for word translation. Use the NLT for daily reading. The thought for thought in the NLT is very accurate and respectful. Disregard this videos lmessage.
Before you open your KJV,pray and ask the Lord to open your understanding,I use the KJV, because It's my mother's Bible and It's LARGE PRINT,I also had the NKJV, but I gave it away, wanted to stick with moms Bible,I have a parallel Bible, that has KJV, NKJV,NIV,NLT, for comparison, but I like the first 3 NLT, not so much.
The RSV says the same. I think if you look* at it with Calvinistic eyes you could see it that way but if you look at it as it sits within it's context it doesn't mistranslate anything.
@@rodney8075 John is the author, when John quotes Jesus prayer in John 17:24 he uses the greek preposition πρό with is no doubt "before", thus the Father loves Jesus "before" the foundation of the world. But in Rev 13:8, he uses ἀπό. ESV gets it wrong, and is misleading the reader into calvinism.
Yeah, the last update in 2016 or 17 or something made that change in the main text, and you can see it on their website digitally. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Good question, and it depends what you mean. I think you mean that some Bibles have missing verses. If that’s that case, most modern bibles have the verses that scholars believe are the original based on the earliest manuscripts. That said, the KJV and other Bible who follow the “majority text” tradition have verses that were added 300-500 years later. Essentially, a majority of later manuscripts have verses that have been added, usually things that clarify or expand ideas. However, just because a lot of manuscripts from 1000AD copied an expanded text, doesn’t mean it’s original. Especially, when multiple early manuscripts don’t have those verses. So, when a Bible has “missing” verses, it’s actually the opposite, Bible’s like the KJV accidentally have added verses. Those “missing verses” usually can’t be found in texts before like 400AD. Just so you’re aware, a verse isn’t removed unless scholars are certain. I should just make a video on this topic, as it’s obvious when you start looking at the manuscripts. Basically, if a verse is removed from the base text, when there are usually like 3 or 4 manuscripts that have it missing, from before the 4the century that were found in different geographical regions (meaning they aren’t just copies of each other), and usually other language translations also show it missing in like Coptic or Latin, and when all that is the case, then it’s obvious that later manuscripts added the verse, and it is removed. Anything less than overwhelming evidence usually means they just leave it in and put a footnote that says something like, “some mss are missing this.”
I think people get so wrapped up in translating Greek and Hebrew they forget the meaning of English words. They were known to the apostles and they were known among the apostles..... pretty much means the same thing. Among is a proposition. "Among the apostles" is a prepositional phrase. Meaning, you can move it around the sentence and it will still make sense. Like... "Among the apostles, they were known." Bottom line "among the apostles" is the prepositional phrase. What does among even mean? According to Webster.... in company or association with. So we can rewrite that phrase then as "they were known in the company of the apostles." In no way does that imply "they" were apostles. They... amongst (older version/ synonym of among) the apostles... were known. That's like saying "LeBron James was well known among the priests." That's not saying LeBron James was a priest... within their company/club. It's just saying... Within that group of people... that company... the priests... knew who LeBron James is. Just like the group... the company... the apostles knew who Andronicus and Junia were. Like "Bill Gates is well known among the video gamer crowd"..... in no way does that imply Bill Gates is a part of that video gamer crowd. This is why I say when it comes to Bible translations people can get a little insane... and no offense, dare I say stupid when it comes to the ENGLISH language and understanding THAT language.
The problem with “known to” and “know among” is that the Greek words used do not actually mean “known to.” Moreover, those who argue for “know to” are doing so because their theology has problems with a being an apostle. So, the translation is a poor translation that misrepresents the language, and one that is for contrived theological ends. I am a Greek professor, so I base this entire video on what the Greek words mean, not on Webster’s dictionary.
Given your last paragraph in the response above, since you are a Greek professor, are you a professor of the Greek language or a professor from Greece? Yet, its always lost in translation. It boils down to who translates it, who edits it, who reads it & ultimately who believes it. Dont get stuck in the weeds
@@stvargas69 I specifically teach people how to translate New Testament Greek at a seminary. So I train future pastors how to read the New Testament properly. To you it may seem like minor weeds, but to a farmer these minor weeds can spoil a whole crop, and thus they must be addressed. In other words, these seeming minor changes in the ESV have real consequences.
If you want the Greek to imply these women were apostles, it's got to say not that they are KNOWN among the apostles but that they ARE among the apostles, or are known TO BE among the apostles.
@@stephenfennell There is actually a lot of scholarly work about this verse and Junia. And, even native Greek speakers centuries after Paul, understood that this woman was an apostle. You can see that discussion in my video 6 minutes in (th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cZqsVRgL0g4eusH5).
As I say at the end of the video, use multiple translations, and recognize that none are perfect. I often reference the NRSV, NASB, KJV. I also think the NIV and NLT are useful for reading casually.
Roman 16:7 The dative case used within a context make for a reasonable translation of to. If they were known among the apostles, they were known to the apostles. TO is a reasonable rendering of the text in context here. We need to be careful that we do not condemn translations because their rendering of the text disagrees with something that we presuppose or it does not promote something that we presuppose. I think you have done this here. There is no perfect translation. In the parallel consideration of several formal equivalence (modified literal) translations we will clarify any shortcomings in one particular version in a particular verse. Applying the basic principle that you are applying in this video you make it impossible to trust any of the translations. That is unless you have some special training in the original language. (By that I mean beyond accidence.) The new testament quotes the Greek Septuagint and calls it the word of God. It was not perfect and they were slight changes that were made under inspiration of the New Testament writers and speakers. Do not take the Greek language and make it a hindrance to receiving the word of God.
I had no issue with the ESV for many years. As I state in the video, no translation is perfect, and there are many great translations. That said, when you start noting their inconsistencies and odd changes, a picture emerges that reveals they had an agenda (and then if you look at the history of the origins of the translation, they also reveal they had an agenda. The ESV was born in the gender controversy with the NIV and editors openly denigrate other translations as being corrupted by feminism and gender issues, which the ESV actively is reversing, in other words, it is not surprising their choices affect the way women are representing in the text, as they were very open about it). That said, their choice in Rom 16:7 is inconsistent with their own choices elsewhere and breaks translation norms. No one had considered that choice until 2001, and even basic Greek speakers in the centuries following did not understand the phrase in that way (There is a bunch of scholarship on this topic). I am well aware of the LXX, and an area of my expertise as a scholar is actually Paul’s use of Scripture. And I am a Greek professor at a seminary, so my intent is not to make Greek a hindrance to receiving the word of God. Rather, I am showing that the ESV’s choices are a hindrance, as they are not accurate and they can result in harm against women.
@@biblegeekPhD I think you may be have a politically correct view of women in the church. And that has tainted your view of the passages requiring the Greek to say things that are not within the purview of the text. Even the Greek can be twisted. And please don’t start the credentials game. I didn’t bring it up but I do not think that your credentials are near mine. So I don’t think it’s a big deal and I didn’t disrespect you with bringing out that first. A bit of an argument by appeal to authority, which is an informal fallacy .
Haha. No wait a second, the ESV (informed by the NET and the scholars they appeal to) have twisted the Greek. No translations prior to the ESV and NET had ever translated the Greek in this way. People over a 1000 years ago understood the Greek to mean “well known among.” I am not arguing for some “politically correct” modern assertion, I am arguing for the basic understanding of the Greek that has been accepted for millennia. Pick the KJV, you will find they agree with me on Rom 16:7. That’s a 400 year old translation. I am not arguing for some modern political correctness. Haha.
@@biblegeekPhD ipse dixit. It would be a blessing to have a direct conversation with you about this. I’m talking about women’s role. I have met this issue in Scholiastic debate years ago, almost a half century, . But I would be interested in seeing someday what you think you have found that allows for women to have a different role than we see Historically in the early church of the apostles and the anti-nisi and fathers and the apostolic fathers.
Indeed, it would be nice to chat about this face to face. You can see more of my thoughts on this by watching my two videos on women in ministry. I focus specifically on the NT is those videos. In those videos, my “unproven statements” (ipse dixit) are demonstrated with multiple sources. There is a third video I want to make, detailing the information in this book: Mary and Early Christian Women. (Free kindle is available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3 In that book the author actually shows numerous churches in the early church that had women doing things only ordained church leaders did: offering the sacraments, wearing clerical garb, and so on. So, there were ordained female clergy early on in church history. Some of the research in this book involves paintings in church walls that were essentially hidden from the public because it was obviously a women offering the Eucharist meal. Also, this research is funded by Catholic grants, so this research is not some anti-establishment rewriting of history. The author is studying closely the early church, which Catholics care about because they are, of course, all about church tradition and precedent. Furthermore, in this book you can even seen how multiple African American women were in ministry in the 17 and 1800’s (www.amazon.com/African-American-Readings-Paul-Transformation/dp/0802876765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=11ZX5UU4UGNI6&keywords=african+american+readings+of+paul&qid=1707421586&sprefix=african+american+readings+%2Caps%2C113&sr=8-1 ). So there were even women in ministry in the US before the rise of women’s suffrage in the early 1900’s and feminism in the 60’s-70’s. So, the myth that women’s roles in ministry is some modern invention concocted by feminism, or whatever else, is not actually true. Women were doing ministry in the NT era, and after that. And there is a bunch of history to back it all up that people have been overlooking and ignoring.
I grew up hearing the old KJV and I've been using the NKJV for years, but recently I've been reading the ESV and so far I like it. I'm not a theologian or anything, I just noticed that a lot of pastors are switching to it and decided to give it a try.
You are wrong in that you accuse the translators of adding anti woman bias to cut women out of leadership roles they actually had. The reason you do this is you are looking at it through the lens of modern culture. Their translation simply conformed more accurately to what the culture OF THAT DAY WAS ....male domination in specific leadership roles in the church. ....and is illustrated by the apostles, the missionaries, and the elders which held those positions. The term "leader in the church" can be as generic as the term servant. Then AND today women are vital to the church . If someone is going to make a big deal about you calling the a servant vs a leader there's a big part of what the NT teaches that you seem to have missed. Take your "modern day glasses" off and see it for what the church was as it functioned in the first century world and you will see the ESV for what it is...one of the best w for w translations available.
Thank you for watching and leaving a comment. I am glad you brought up the culture of the biblical time, because it is when one understands the culture of the first century that you begin to see when and how women were in leadership. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text. Thanks again for watching.
The csb bible also present the same problem on Rom 16:1 and 7, Tim 3:11 and 12; and spanish versión present the same problem on Tim 3:11 and 12 only:in the line of esv is NVI; and in the other hand RV60 and Jerusalem biblia (in spanish version)
I'm sorry 1:00 Andronicus and Junia are NOT called Apostles. The passage in Roman's 16:7 says "They are notorious among the Apostles" which is NRSVUE and another translation CSB is "They are noteworthy in the eyes of the Apostles," It does NOT suggest Junia or Andronicus were an Apostle at all in any translation, nor the Greek. It is saying, "Among the Apostles, they are notoriously known." They are somehow known by the Apostles, maybe just from hearing of them or possibly spent time with them (have no idea) and the Apostles see them as very prominate in the Christian faith. We know who the Apostles are and Junia nor Andronicus were not one of them. So, the ESV translation is OK to suggest "to the Apostles".
Hi, there is only so much you can fit in a 10ish minute video. I am well aware that Junia was “notorious,” in fact, I kinda like that translation. Glad you mentioned it. You can seem my discussion on Junia in my other video, where I even mention she is “notorious,” which is an intentional nod to that translation option. th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hh6HHzBle8evM2gX So, the problem with the ESV is their translation of the prepositional phrase, it’s inconsistent and does not accurately represent the Greek. And, they are following the NET and the scholarship the NET uses, but the arguments of those scholars have been thoroughly debunked, which the NET and ESV conveniently ignore. There is a huge reason virtually no one ever translated that phrase as “well known to” before 2001 (when Wallace and Burer made their argument), and it’s because that’s not the correct way of translating that word in that context. So prior to 2001, no one was arguing that. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD @biblegeek7 Just a couple questions for you. When the verse suggests Andronicus and Junia as Apostles you are suggesting like how Barnabas or others are mentioned as Apostles and not the original 12 since Apostle meaning is one sent out or one sent on a mission correct? Do you know that Greek theologians, who have the idea that these two are Apostles, also suggest the text could have the other meaning of other Apostles know them and they are in high regard of them? From the info I've come across I think Mike Winger lays out the arguments really well here. th-cam.com/users/liveOALGfKujmIU I'm actually now up in the air on the subject. Maybe they were Apostles, maybe simply highly regarded by Apostles but to me it doesn't really matter. For me, either way it doesn't change the fact that women can or can't be Apostles cuz of course they can. Just like today we would have women Missionaries. I'm only interested in the what the text actually says. When I've read the passage I didn't get the impression that they were Apostles, but it could be interpreted that way.
Around the 7 min point, I discuss early church theologians and I quote John chrysostom, whose name means “golden mouth” in Greek. He was a Greek orator. So, he understood Junia as an Apostle (the title), and Greek was his first language, and he was an expert in rhetoric. th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_a-kWi7p9g4wE9O0 I am going to listen to that guys interpretation of the verse. And, the idea that there is only 12 “apostles,” while common, ignores that Paul was also one, and they replaced Judas by drawing lots in Acts, it’s in the first couple chapters of acts, so there would be 13 “apostles” once Paul is added. And, thus, the early church did not see apostle something limited to the 12. There are other examples as well.
*Everyone is going to be terribly shocked at the Gate when they meet Jesus if they hadn't learned about the thousands of supernatural changes the AC made in every bible on Earth...* th-cam.com/play/PLOTw4zBND_NPf66nKUONLoe2MNFLb5LQr.html
you'll find errors in the kjv and nkjv about peoples ages search up for them its not that good of a bible. also the name king James just gives it that bias king vibe. so tred carefully
I have found the Amplified Bible is, unfortunately, misguided (missing the mark, confused, probably missing something). See what I did there, haha. Ok, joking aside. As someone who knows the original languages, the amplified often adds things in parentheses that are completely not in the original language. So, many times people see (this as a clarification on a word) but in reality it is pushing an idea that is not at all in the word or sometimes not even in the text. So, if you like that Bible, keep reading it, but know that the parentheses are often times theological commentary, not explaining the words in the text. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD no need, I just read it in the Bible. But all of the egalitarian points you are making that seemed to favor NRSV, just disappear when you read 1 Tim 2, you know, the chapter before 1 Tim 3
@@Superman111181 the NRSV is referenced in this video for those who don’t know English. I chose the NRSV because it is an update to the RSV, just like the ESV, and the NRSV is what is used in academic contexts. I read the Bible in the original language, Greek and Hebrew, and don’t actually have a favorite translation. So, the points I am making are based on the original language.
@@Superman111181 I have 2 whole videos that discuss women in ministry, feel free to watch those. In those videos, I reference a book called “tell her story” I would recommend that book. The translation of those verses are not as simple as people make it out to be.
This sounds like a skillfully constructed propaganda piece. For Rom 16:7 I agree that "among" would be a better choice but "among" does not say that they ARE apostles and using "to" does not reduce them to being only popular. Read in context, the woman are regarded highly in both versions. For Rom 16:1 "servant" is used in the NKJV and NASB so maybe the NRSV is the outlier here. The NRSV is known to lean towards gender inclusiveness and maybe the ESV leans the other way but it is disingenuous to present the NRSV as the correct standard and use it to denigrate the ESV.
I used the NRSV because both the ESV and NRSV are revisions to the RSV. Feel free to look at the resources in the video description. What I have presented in this video has been noticed by many scholars. Thanks for watching.
Yep. I stopped watching this guy after less than a minute. He's just an apologist for the NRSV--which I foolishly bought and, realizing the mistake, donated it to Goodwill several months later.
@@charlesurban3230 Thanks for the minute of watch time, and the comments, both help me greatly. PS, at the end of the video I explain that no translation is perfect. There are actually numerous problems with the NRSV as well, but I compare the NRSV to the ESV because they are both revisions of the RSV.
Romans 16:7 your absolutely right Gen 3:16 right rom 16:1 right. I am a complementarian, but I agree with you they are pushing their heavy calvinistic doctrine too.
When i saw the title 3 problems it made me hesitant to even start reading. So please recommend me to Which Bible should i study? I only want to start once i feel this is the right one. Because i haven't read the Bibles yet.
I would recommend this Bible, the SBL Study Bible. www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-Society-Biblical-Literature/dp/0062969420/ref=asc_df_0062969420/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693550347081&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1799144134918663961&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9014319&hvtargid=pla-2015286708377&psc=1&mcid=ca0895bf3e4c3e89bee2ea6da262e0fd
I would definitely recommend getting as many different translations as you can and start sooner than later. But I’ll also give my opinion and suggestions as a seminary student Every man’s study Bible NLT - great Bible they also have a women’s version but I can’t speak to that as I’ve never used it. This one focuses on how to live the life God calls men to and highlights the positives and negatives of different biblical men. Life application NLT- focus again on practical theology and how to actually put the biblical meanings into practice. The ESV study Bible - this one is funny to recommend on a video about problems with the ESV translation, which this just doubles down. But it’s still a good translation for 90% of the Bible and just acknowledge the Calvinist and complementation bias CSB study Bible - from my experience this one does a much better job at being neutral and saying here’s the Text and letting you draw your own conclusions. CSB also has a few other good study bibles, it’s my preference translation as it does a great job balancing the word for word and though for thought translations, and I own 8 different CSB study bibles (he reads truth, apologetics, life connections, life counsel, the disciples Bible, the Charles Spurgeon, and the Tony Evan’s,) I recommend all of them except for the two with the names on them A great option would be a Thomason Chain in any translation. No bias just linked scriptures. Your not going to go wrong with something like the NKJV Spirit filled life bible, Notice my bibles have all been devotional in nature, if you’ve never read. The Bible you should probably start with something more devotional than academic in nature. I would honestly look at reviews of translations and just go from there. You won’t ever find a perfect one so get a good one and build out. Maybe even download you version or go on Bible hub and read john or Lukeacts to get a feel those translations ( I always recommend you to read Luke and acts together as those are actually part one and part two off the same book)
In my experience I have enjoyed the way they simplify some of the syntax and tricky vocabulary, but I haven’t used the NLT much. I always tell people to read the version that keeps them reading, and when you have a question about a passage, open up multiple translations.
@@biblegeekPhD well I just purchased the esv and I have the King James Version with the apocrypha and the nlt I’m enjoying the nlt it’s keeps me reading people always have there opinions on translation only because everyone else have different IQ so sometimes there vocabulary is more greater than others
As someone who has taken Koine Greek in seminary, you are mistaken when it comes to ‘en tois’. ‘En tois’ can also mean ‘to’. Also, ‘diakonos’ literally means ‘servant’ or ‘one who waits tables’. It can be translated literally as ‘deacon’ when the text is referring to the office of deacon. At the end of the day, context is king in determining any word with multiple meanings, and the ESV has done nothing wrong in these instances. I suggest learning more Greek before you make such comments, because a little Greek is a dangerous thing.
Hi, thanks for watching and commenting. Glad you took Greek in seminary. I hope you’re able to use your Greek knowledge to dig deeper into your understanding of the Bible and God. I am actually a Koine Greek professor at a seminary. I have been reading the Bible in Greek for over a decade. So, my comments are coming from a place of expertise, not ignorance. While scholars can certainly debate how to translate διακονος (see my women in ministry videos for more discussion), the ESV’s translation choices, especially in regards to ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, have been criticized and debunked by many scholars. Feel free to look at the many sources I reference in my video description. These problems with the ESV are well documented.
@@biblegeekPhD I'm Sure every translation can be Nitpicked in such a manner. The real issues is what is said about Jesus and Eternal Life. Whether someone was know among or to the Apostles in the big picture has nothing to do with Ones Salvation.
@@Keitenrenbu so, I get where your coming from. And, I actually think many debates about the Bible and translation are ridiculous. That said, the reason I made this video is because they ESV is breaking basic norms on translation to support their gender roles theology. The ESV editors were not quiet about this. One editor championed that the ESV was going to erase any hint of feminism from the translation. While someone is certainly allowed to critique feminism or believe in traditional gender roles or whatever, translators should not begin translation with a theological conclusions and then break translation norms to fit those conclusions. The reasons all this matter is two fold. 1) the ESV is actually representing the text they are claiming to represent. 2) these poor translations result in unhealthy and harmful theologies that hurt all people, women, men, and everyone else. So, to you point about nitpicking. I agree, it often doesn’t matter is a preposition is “in/on/at” whatever, but the consistent mistranslations of the ESV are a problem worth talking about because of what they lead to and support.
@@biblegeekPhD one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier one who gets someth. done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone. Two usages of διάκονος as per the BDAG Personally the term servant fits better than Deacon. Deacon implies the assembly or ekekklesia where are the former implies getting something done like lets say the women who were the first to share the Good News, before the Apostles were given the Commission. women in leadership roles in that time and culture compared to our time and culture are completely different. People should be able to see that.
You should see my other videos on that topic. That said, this critiques of the ESV are based on the ESV’s inconsistent translations choices. Had they been consistent abs accurate, not a problem, but they aren’t. They break long accepted translation norms. I have complementarian friends who have these same issues with the ESV.
@@biblegeekPhD I saw them, but I disagree with your analysis. Women having churches in their homes doesn’t indicate they are leaders of those churches. The qualifications for elders doesn’t allow for that interpretation. Deacons, I can see an argument being made for that, especially when getting into the original languages.
@@biblegeekPhD I think the mistake you made was to compare it to NRSV. I would understand if the critique was just on ESV without the comparison. The comparison diminished your argument.
@@majesticpictures5715 I was not comparing the ESV to the NRSV, I was basing my entire argument on the original languages. I am actually a greek professor at a seminary, so I train future clergy how to read and translate the Bible from the original languages. I only put the NRSV on the screen as a reference for those who do not know the original languages, and both the NRSV and ESV are related, as they are both updates to the RSV. So, I was not comparing the two, I was simply showing an alternative translation, one of many alternatives.
ESV is correct regarding Junia. Burer and Wallace make a compelling argument based on grammar and over 100 textual examples that Andronicus and Junia were “well known to the apostles."
Thanks for the video. Romans 16:7 is interesting indeed. Is has massive range of translations, even among the KJV, CSB, NASB. Interesting that the LSB departs from the 1995 NASB by translating the dative as “outstanding to the apostles”, when the 1995 NASB translates it “among the apostles”.
Yeah, the debates on the verse have made some translations shift to the “to the apostle” idea, when that is not how it’s been translated in the past. While I haven’t dug into this, I suspect that certain translations began doing “to the apostle” after the case became too strong in favor of Junia being a woman, but that is just speculation. Note that the NASB 95 has Junias, and so Junias could be a prominent man apostle … but now that this person is a understood rightly as woman named Junia, the translation changes from “among” to “to” in the LSB. So, you can see that these problem are not limited to the ESV, unfortunately.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 That is an old edition. The more recent editions do not have the masculine form NA27 and NA28. The Nestle from 1927-1993 had the masculine form in their base text, however, before 1927 critical GNTs had the Feminine name, which is what the actual manuscripts reflect. This is all detailed thoroughly in the Epp book I cited in the video. The reality is, there is not Greek manuscript evidence for the Masculine form that was put in those critical GNTs, there were some latin manuscripts that had masculine forms, and this allowed them to hypothesize that this was a man with a contracted masculine ending. When in reality, the latin scribes made the mistake. However, there is basically no evidence for this masculine name in the NT era. This is all detailed in the Epp book. You can also read a very abridged and accesible discussion on this in Nijay Gupta's book, "Tell Her Story." But if you know Greek, Epp's book is very detailed. There is a similar chart to the one in the video of GNTs with the masculine and feminine forms. So, your Nestle is probably one before 1993. Not even Crossway's critical GNT the Tyndale GNT (came out in 2019 I think) has the masculine form.
I always tell people to look at multiple translations. Based on what you’re looking for, probably the NRSV. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing. Thanks for your question and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for the answer! I'm not a native English speaker, but I am looking for a good go to translation and the number of options is overwhelming
The word "among" in English has several meanings. So, taking the ESV to task for a single ( or, at most two ) instance of failing to use it to render the Greek is somewhat misleading in itself. Nitpicking, I'd say. The RSV and NRSV may have some slight technical advantages, but in the case of the NRSV using gender inclusive language, it is clear that those translators also had an agenda. In my view, nothing reads like the ESV. I have all the other major, legitimate translations available for comparison, as well as my Greek interlinear and lexicon. I prefer to read the text without chapter and verse markings, only referring to those "intrusions" for detailed study.
@@biblegeekPhD LOL! Sure the NRSV has no agenda with it's "inclusive language." Nor does the NIV, with its interchanging of "teachings" and 'traditions" to suit its evangelical Protestant agenda.
may you please help me, what is the best study bible replicating exact words of bible. i was about to buy a smililar esv edition but stumbled across your video
If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the two I recommend are the SBL Study Bible and the Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL study Bible is newer, so I would pick that one. Thanks for watching.
You should see my other videos. People who read and spoke Greek as the first language, in the centuries after the writing of the NT also thought Junia was an apostle. So, despite what modern readers think, even the early church understood this phrase to be talking about an apostle.
@biblegeek7 Good video, brother. The whole Junias deal was thoroughly debunked, with over 250 Greek sources still existing today are all feminine. Junias is in later manuscripts and not representative of the original text. This should show some people that different texts can be wrong. What type of bias do we have that we don't know we have?......Unconscious bias. One needs to know it exists in order to recognize it in one's self. Indeed, there is an anti-feminine bias in some translations and many churches today. I'm sure Junia was an awesome Apostle, and one must ask why it was put in there. There is strength in diversity. Nice way you respond to detractors, spoken with Eph. 4:15 in mind, and great humility from what I see, that tends to be rare nowadays. Shalom aleichem.
This just confused me even more 😭 i want to get a bible for Christmas but I dont know whats a good choice ultimately ill likely consider another in the future but whats a good start? Ive had either the ESV or KJV study bibles in my eye, from those choices whats a good start? The bibles are huge and as such have flaws but I hope that with either translation i could be guided by the holy spirit to the truth🙏 Please reccomend one to start Thanks!
When looking for study Bibles, I recommend the SBL Study Bible, New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL is the newest and full of world class Bible scholars. Though, if this is for someone young and new the the faith, the Zondervan NIV Study Bible is also useful.
Get the ESV, this guy in the video is making errors about the translatiom while talking about what he "thinks" are errors in the ESV. He says the verse in Genesis does not fit the idea of male headship and yet if you read the literal context of the whole verse, I. E. Read the whole chapter you'll see that's exactly what it's talking about. It's talking about how the women will be rebellious towards her husband from and how her husband will rule over her. We literally see this today, why do we see wives always fighting with their husbands? It's clear what the text is referring to if we just look at even real life today. Just get the ESV. This video is way off.
I haven’t done a deep dive into the CSB, so I can’t comment on what kind of biases it has or anything like that. I did briefly look at the scholars that contributed to its translation, and it was not a diverse committee and very few women.
Federal headship is a doctrine of the utmost importance. The fact you definitely seem to have an ax to grind against that doctrine says a lot about how liberal your theology is
I suggest that people read multiple. NRSV, CEB, NIV, NKJV, NASB and more. Read whatever keeps you reading the Bible, and when you study it, read multiple translations or learn the original languages and then reference multiple translations. Thanks for watching and for both of your comments. :)
It certainly is inconsistent with their translation philosophy, but the cases in Genesis and I Timothy are rather defensible. The sense of אל there is not positive. Every pronouncement of God to every character is negative in the fall narrative. I can see the sense of "for" being one of strife and disharmony. Marital strife is just as much a theme in the patriarchal narratives as marital domination, so that either or both is a possible reading. The biggest problem is not the interpretation they have but their clarifying when "for" was suitably ambiguous. In I Tim 3, it transitions to deacons after a discussion of bishops/presbyters. The sense of the passage is the office. It begins describing appropriate behavior, then moves to declaring he must "rule his own house well." It then moves to deacons and repeats similar standards in v 8-10. It moves to "γυναῖκας likewise," and directly parallels the place of ruling the house above and pairs this with a deacon must be the "husband of one wife" μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες. With no contextual change, the sense of γυνή should be the same: wife. The only gripe I would have is that "their" is not justified, due to the absence of both pronoun and article. Readers are capable of inferring who the wives are. This is not a severe problem, though, because the meaning of the text is unchanged. The translation problem in I Tim 3 is the NRSV, not the ESV. "Women" is simply not the sense being used in the passage, and it doesn't say "married once" γαμοῦντες ֲἄπαξ or something similar but μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες "husband of one wife." The contrast in gender was intended by the author. I don't think the NRSV's reading is not defensible. I know it's come in vogue with scholarship, but when culture shifts, that will change too. He could have said "married once" and didn't. I would share your criticism of Rom 16, though. Deaconesses are well attested in the earliest days of the Church and only transitioned out with changing roles of baptism and deacons. "In the church" makes it quite clear it's an ecclesiastical office in at least some communities. Marginal notes in virtually every translation are consistently bizarre and unjustifiable. This is the place where translators can push their least defensible ideas (and typically do) since it's technically not part of the text. I don't think most translations' translational footnotes are beneficial to the average reader. The biggest fault I find with the ESV in your passages is market-speak. Overwhelmingly, people who say they have a "word for word" translation are selling beachfront property in Kansas. It's designed to sucker people who don't realize that "word for word" would be outright gibberish and isn't possible for a translation. It's fundamentally a lie.
Your analysis of the ESV's "bias" in 1st Timothy is SURREAL! You actually seem to be saying that the seriously warped NRSV passage is more accurate than the ESV's translation. The NRSV has rewritten the whole passage by removing any references to the deacon's wife. That's because having a wife shows that the deacon is male! And that warped NRSV translation is supposed to be better than the ESV!!! Hello Rod Serling!
This video is not a defense of the NRSV, it is a critique of the ESV’s misrepresentation of the Greek. They are adding words to 3:11 that obscure that 3:11 could be referencing women deacons, which actually makes sense in light of Rom 16:1. By adding the pronoun, the ESV makes the choice for the reader, and it falls short of the supposed “word for word” correspondence it champions. You’re welcome to dislike the NRSV, i don’t care what translation you read, but everyone should be aware that the ESV makes these consistent poor translation choices.
@@biblegeekPhD Romans 16:1 in the KJV uses the term servant. Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.
I picked up an ESV bible just a couple days ago. I'm no bible thumper, nor do I know biblical Hebrew or Greek, but I did notice the "contrary to" in Genesis 3:16 right away. It struck me as odd, since I had always read it as "for" in other translations. From what little I've read of it, my first impression is that the ESV is very similar to the NKJV, which I like. Just as an example, I prefer "valley of the shadow of death" in both the ESV and NKJV over "darkest valley" we find in some other translations. To me it's more poetic. Two professors of New Testament history I respect believe that the NSRV is the most accurate version we currently have, but ultimately there isn't going to be any single translation that appeals to every person. I seriously doubt there's anyone who is going to change their theological stance on an issue based on a different translation of a preposition, or calling someone a "servant" vs a "deacon." Though I prefer sticking as closely as possible to the most ancient sources (I don't like paraphrased versions), the best version for most people is going to whichever version motivates them to read scripture, and helps them to become more effective instruments of God's will. None of these translation differences are worth anyone getting upset over. Just my take...
I used to think that a translation wouldn’t influence a theological stance, and then I started studying Greek and Hebrew and started realizing it was more complicated. I noticed that many people be believe that women shouldn’t do ministry also use the ESV, and then I noticed that all the key passages used to support women in ministry have been obscured in he ESV. So, a translation might not change someone’s stance, but a translation can be used to legitimize and support a stance, meanwhile that translation can be misleading or incorrect. So, we should always look closely at translations and try to evaluate their aims. That said, I agree, read a Bible you like reading. That’s the most important. Thanks for watching and commenting. Ps I like you name, peace on earth is the goal of the gospel! Peace!
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks, brother. "but a translation can be used to legitimize and support a stance." 100% true, and it seems to me to be the #1 reason most people either like or dislike a particular translation. I really have no huge religious dog in the translation hunt, as many of my views would be considered heretical by most mainstream Christians anyway. Taking religious faith out of the equation for a minute, at the very least the bible is the world's most famous literature. And great literature should be treated with reverence. In the same way that we should want our Beowulf translations to be true to what the author was actually trying to say, we need to respect the biblical literature enough to try our best to let it say what its authors were actually trying to say without interjecting our own biases. Paxonearth came about after our first son, Paxton, was born. Glad you noticed. I'll keep watching your channel. Take care of yourself.
As a Bible scholar, I am often considered a heretic for simply showing people what the Bible says. So you’re in good company. Welcome to being a Bible Geek. :)
And, I agree, the Bible should be read like any other book, regardless of what one believes about it. In fact, my area of expertise is literary theory and hermeneutics, so I have spent many hours researching the topic. Here is an example of one of my publications. brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p228_5.xml?language=en Maybe one day I will package some of it into a video.
The ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION is not my favorite. But it certainly destroys the obnoxiously gender inclusive NRSV. The ESV also tears the NIV to shreds.
Bibles that destroy and tear to shreds … those are some pretty harsh verbs for the word of God, the one who is know as a God of love. You’re welcome to read any Bible you like, but none of the Bibles I know destroy and tear to shreds, that’s seem like something that people do with Bibles, sadly. I hope my video helped you see some of the ways the ESV doesn’t live up to its own aims and some of its imperfections. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD Well, if you want to hear the positive, I would say that the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV is the best. It is the one BIBLE that is accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants. Many people don't like the NRSV because of its excessive use of gender neutral language. My grudge against the NIV is that its purpose was to make a BIBLE that didn't sound Catholic or Anglican.
Then you haven't read NASB 2020. So much of what the RSV and NRSV were burned for by many are included there. Understanding changes, just like the times.
Even bible scholar Dan Wallace has problems with what the ESV wound up doing in 2016. People need to calm down and realize that every English translation has its problems. Let’s not pile on to a brother who’s just pointing out some problems he sees with a particular translation, in which other biblical scholars have pointed out the same problems, but have recommended the ESV as still a very good translation. I know that “wokeness” ( whatever that now means in definition ) has made many very paranoid that there is a hidden agenda behind everything, but this is literally a discussion that has been ongoing since the biblical scriptures were translated into English. Let’s calm down, and quit just assuming that someone automatically has a “liberal” agenda. Let’s be Christians who know what scripture has to say about witnesses and evidence when it comes to what biblical justice ( guilt or innocence ) looks like.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
Apostle is used variously in the New Testament, not always as one of the 12 or Paul. For example, in Acts 14 Barnabas is included with Paul as an apostle, which I take in the looser sense of missionary. See also Epaphraditus Philippians chapter 2.
I am going to assume you’re asking for accurate translation. Hard question, every translation has strengths and weaknesses. And accuracy of translation is hard to quantify, and language translation isn’t math. I always tell people, read whatever translation keeps you reading. For some that is the NRSV, NIV, NLT, or CEB. Others want a more wooden or clunky translation that follows the different kind of word order in Greek and Hebrew tree, and for that the NASB would be good. Or the KJV (but keep in mind the KJV is very old English, and is not using the best Greek manuscripts), that said the KJV is also a good translation considering it was translated 400 years ago. If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the SBL study Bible (NRSVue), or the Oxford annotated study Bible (NRSV), would be a good options. Those Bibles choose NRSV, not necessarily because it is the best, but probably because it is the “ecumenical” translation. So, the translation is working with people from multiple denominations and faith traditions, and because those Bible’s are trying to be more academically minded, so rhetorical editors would choose the translation that fits that perspective. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
Concerning the word diakonos. Look at the usage in the NT. It is used all over the NT clearly meaning "servant". You have to consider the context of 1 Tim 3. Paul speaks about offices - episkopos and diakonos. The second point you make is also not correct because the juxtaposition of the "Women" in v. 11 is not "men" but deacons. So it is not question of sexes as you make it to be. Again it is correct translation. In the time of Paul it was quite popular to push women into leadership. For example the cult of Diana (feminism is nothing new nor progressive) pushed the idea that women should rule the society. It was great problem in Corinthian church. But clearly you have your agenda. :D
Yeah, women were in ministry long before feminism. There were multiple churches with women leaders in the NT and in the centuries following the NT. You can read all about it in: (www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3) So, the discussion of women and ministry is not a thing that was spawned simply because of feminism. Despite what people will tell you, there were many churches ordaining women before the 1970’s. You may be interested in my videos on women in ministry and the Bible, and I go into more detail on the translation on diakonos. Thanks for watching.
@@biblegeekPhD Yeah, but that is not what I am saying. The ancient Cult of Diana is an example that devisive spirit of contemporary feminism is nothing new nor pregresive. Rather regresive to push the society before the time of truly revolutionary christian ideas communicated in the Bible.
Yeah, I was aware of what you were saying. I don’t find women taking places of authority a threat to the church, but actually all people can be called to lead church congregations in all capacities. And, I think Paul was perfectly fine with women leaders as well. Christianity is definitely revolutionary, but if I am reading your comments correctly, I think we have different ideas on what that revolution looks like.
Thank you for this video! I have an NRSV study Bible from my university days but just ordered an ESV with a journaling margin, it hasn't arrived yet (I'm now also feeling glad I got it on sale). I will be adding notes on this subject for sure, including anywhere I find an issue with this in my NRSV (which I had planned to use to check the ESV against). But now I'm feeling also inspired to get my hands on an interlinear Bible in English, Hebrew and Greek, just for extra back-up. Anyway, will be coming back to this video for future reference. So glad you popped up in my recommended today, it was meant to be!
Glad you liked the video, and enjoy your new Bible :) thanks for watching! And an interlinear is free on the internet. Check out Biblehub. biblehub.com/interlinear/ That said, it’s not always as simple as reading an interlinear, because those too aren’t perfect, as language isn’t always one to one word for word kind of thing. :)
You might notice that he actually did not discuss the translation of verse 12, where husband and wife are IN THE TEXT…so perhaps there is an agenda…on his part…Διάκονοι deacons g1249 ἔστωσαν Let be g1510 μιᾶς of one g1520 γυναικὸς wife g1135 ἄνδρες, the husbands g0435 τέκνων children g5043 καλῶς well g2573 προϊστάμενοι ruling g4291 καὶ and g2532 τῶν - g3588 ἰδίων their own g2398 οἴκων. houses
This video has sold me ESV. As somebody who uses NRSVCE everyday, ESV is much closer to original Greek and doesn't make translation choices based on ideology.
Gotta say, you quoting that Ben guy really creeped me out!! The dominant patriarchy is a product of The Fall?? Did i hear that correctly?? Is the patriarchy incorrect in its place because it somehow dominates women?? Somebody please help me understand this guy!! 🙏 p.s. I just looked up B.W. and discovered he's a Wesleyan Arminian...'nuff said. I get it now...
I seriously laughed out loud at you calling Ben Witherington, “that Ben guy.” Hahaha Next time I see him, I will have to call him “that Ben guy.” He is one of the most published NT scholars of our current moment, soooo, calling him that Ben guy is pretty hilarious. That said, his interpretation of Gen 3 is pretty standard. You are free to disagree with him.
@@AmericanSentinelK9Productions it was not Adams rib, that is a mistranslation in Gen 2:20-21 noted by many scholars. No where else in Scripture is this Hebrew term (tzela) translated "rib," it usually means "side." This is why early Rabbis argued that man and women were created by splitting the Adam (the first human) into two halves (Bereshit Rabat 8:1). This interpretation is consistent with Gen 1, where man and women were both created at the same time, and both were the image of God. There is a lot more that we could unpack here, but I will just tell you to go check out Wilda Gafney's book Womanist Midrash.
@@biblegeekPhD You are throwing out a red herring. Regardless of if she was made from Adam's rib or his side, either way, she was still made from Adam for Adam, not the other way around. Let's not overlook that.
One of the primary rules of hermeneutics is to allow the clearest speaking verses to inform how we understand the less clear verses. Diakonos could be translated as "deacon" or "servant." So that is not the clearest passage. However, 1 Timothy 3:12 reads, word-for-word literally, "Let deacons be men of one woman ...." It is not "spouse of one spouse." It is not even really "the husband of one wife," as the ESV says. "Men of one woman..." or "one-woman men." Since this is the clearest passage, and it teaches that deacons must be men (of one woman), then this understanding informs the ESV translators when to use "deacon" vs. "servant" in other passages. (Likewise, just above that passage, 1 Timothy 3:2 tells us that an elder/bishop must be "the man of one woman," and thus women may not hold that office. Again, this very clear language helps translators with word choice in other passages.) The only way you come up with an egalitarian view of church leadership is if you ignore the clearest language, and then pick the words that suit your predispositions. Sorry, Bible Geek.
I am glad you know what hermeneutics is, that’s great! However, the clearest verse informing the less clear is not actually sound hermeneutics. How does one determine clear? What “clear” texts do you use to interpret other texts? And I could go on. Hermeneutics is actually a specialty of mine, I have even published in hermeneutic theory. All that said, when one studies an unclear word or phrase, you do not begin with clear texts, you begin with how the author uses it elsewhere. Then you work your way outward to similar writers from that time and in similar literature. Your representation of 1 Tim is too simplistic. The reason translators struggle and all come to different conclusions is because it is not “very clear language.” The verse prior is taking directly to women, this causes some odd tension because then the writer switches to talking about plural deacons (in the masculine). Often the masculine plural is not gender specific: “brothers” refers to all siblings in a collective, “men” refers to all people in a collective. Thus it is possible this is not specific to male deacons. And your word for word is also not accurate, it is actually “deacons, let them be of one woman men.” And this phrase actually means “married only once” Below in [] is a lexical entry from BDAG, and it specifically notes that it can apply to a man or woman. Thus, the phrase it taking about a person being a faithful spouse, not only to men having one wife. [μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16-29. For the use of μία in ref. to a woman: Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 346 D.: ὑπὲρ μιᾶς γυναικός=for only one woman; μία γυνή quite freq.: Diod. S. 17, 72, 6; cp. 1, 80, 3, where the phrase γαμοῦσι μίαν simply means that the priests married only once, not that they lead a strictly moral life, a concept for which Greeks never use the expression μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ or anything like it; Hippostratus [III BC]: 568 fgm. 1 Jac.; Appian, Bell. Civ. 4, 95 §402; Ath. 33, 2 ἐφ̓ ἑνὶ γάμῳ: Ath. terms a second marriage εὐπρεπής μοιχεία veiled adultery) 1 Ti 3:2, 12.] There is a reason the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are egalitarian, it is because when you look closely at the evidence, complementarian theology becomes unsustainable. See my videos on women in ministry for more detail.
@@biblegeekPhD To me, your scholarship, while remarkable, is not convincing enough to overthrow 2000 years of church practice, in ordaining only men. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is probably the most astute follower that Jesus had. Her insights were remarkable, and Jesus never had to say to her, "Get behind me, Satan." And yet she was not appointed to office. When a denomination allows women to be ordained, especially to the office of elder, it is usually the beginning of a slip into full-blown liberalism.
What you have been told about the history of the church not ordaining women is not accurate. I hear this all the time in comp circles, and I used to be in one. Here is a link to a church history book called Mary and Early Christian Women. The kindle is free because the researcher received grants from the Catholic Church. www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3 It explains that from 300-700 there is loads of evidence that women were ordained. There are numerous fresco paintings in churches all over Europe of women wearing clerical attire, offering the sacramental meal, which only priests could do, and other evidence as well. For, centuries some of these paintings were, literally, covered up and hidden because the Catholic Church didn’t want people to know women used to be ordained. And then there is also this book, which is a bit more approachable: The Making of Biblical Womanhood. www.amazon.com/Making-Biblical-Womanhood-Subjugation-Became/dp/1587434709/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=28Q8I03QGLN2C&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1DE5caQqGmkiGeAJaNnR4yejgLt8lsFCB01q7h8F-bLJ3R3dG8vvJPAnQAzkjRapbFWoW9PVM4Zu3H_D2RbNAeJVSZzN4pQRS4V6Fli3Gv7uZG5cF2SmcJVsRyJp2bEhHxtzRVXuElfuiax5fZzLdX3JTwFuTPUIXRE6MxJy7pAgl828UW0AsPu1rGjg2mszH98RAhuGq24YiM5J17QmvQ.3BTISnz6RpW90b8kw0gPT-FHTTCfl3P9d-FW2Kd_E0s&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Making+of+Biblical+Womanhood&qid=1728695728&sprefix=the+making+of+biblical+womanhood%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1 Also written by a historian, and it chronicles women in the medieval church and Protestant reformation, as well as has a chapter in the NT which is very well researched, being that Barr is not an NT scholar (everything she argues there is normative NT scholarship, and well stated). Lastly, while this books is focused on much more than women in ministry, it too discusses women in ministry in the US in African American churches. African American Readings of Paul, www.amazon.com/African-American-Readings-Paul-Transformation/dp/0802876765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=269ICXWV6ILRP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.soJb1hDQYYjSR2a9iF-iNrXKwXeBpp5Db39dTlCMRLXdPXMTVKwIXWVY0_7Jl-DATVnUJ3ZMgwuKZCQMAV7WL5byng_4vQMKob1c6tH0rMB7ey4vkk7TxLBbldoKxGDCbzbsIs90U8xf77lCpybcrTgucBKe7WRe5laoU7hY--2L8uJfq6iwaJqLE0Hpv3RNyhkVRdj7BlhAYkhilIsppA.q3go00pejOq12NkSLfasZh81CwolbvuWYJqdBQFMdS0&dib_tag=se&keywords=african+american+readings+of+paul&qid=1728695918&sprefix=paul+and+african+am%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1 All that said, the argument that the church didn’t ordain women for 2000 years is just factually incorrect. Many women have been ordained, and these churches were around long before “liberalism.” I hope you decide to go read one of these books. If I had to recommend one, I would recommend the one by Barr. Thanks for watching, Grace and Peace.
Thanks for bringing clarity to this troubling translation. The majority of churches I have attended use the ESV. I have also been erased and patronized as a women trying to work in these churches, so it makes sense.
Yeah, this is an unfortunate reality of many women in ministry. I am so sorry this has happened to you. Thank you for watching, and I hope you are able to find a community that supports you.
Interesting. This gave me new knowledge on the ESV translation! 😊 Thank you for that, fellow bro in Christ! Also, what do you think about the NIV (more specifically the 2011 version)?
Thank you for watching and commenting. Glad you got something out of it. The NIV is not perfect either, but its strength is that it is very readable. As I say in the video, no translation is perfect, and if you’re studying a passage, read multiple. If you’re not studying, and just reading for enjoyment, then read whatever is easiest for you. The NLT is similarly readable.
As someone who has grown with a strong french background, when i went into a country where English is spoken, i watched a bunch of videos promoting KJV and NKJV and the best bibles...So i bought them and started to read them side by side so i can also fellowship with my new brothers and sisters in Christ...But, i was being lost because the English wasn't beginner friendly...So what??Should i keep on reading something i don't understand where in an hour i just read 2 verses and the rest of the time being in an English dictionary???Is that what God want for me?? No... That's why this is a very useless debate on bible versions. I'll tell what I've learned in my life as a Christian. Whatever bible version you have and your confortable with, read it if you can understand, and the Holy Spirit won't let you down. When you're really seeking for the truth because you love God, the Holy Spirit will guide you. You can have your main bible that you use for your daily devotion, that you understand and can memorize verses, and have other bibles aside when comparing and try to grab the context. You can start debates from the morning till the evening about bible versions, at the end of the day millions of people are being saved, strengthened and blessed by the bible versions that some criticize or dislike, etc... When you die, God won't ask you which bible version you used to read. It will be a matter of if you gave your life to Jesus or not, if you worked in the fear of God or not, if you obey Christ's commandments or not...With any versions of the bible God can lead, and if the version is very evil, with false and intentionally wrong interpretations, the Holy Spirit will give you a red flag and lead you to a better one for you, because if you really seek God in truth, he'll show you the way. Even in french, the bible i use is not beginner friendly. So i knew some people because of their education, didn't understand it and kept using it because it said it was the best. But, i did the same, told them to grad a simpler version, easy french that they can understand and God through is Holy Spirit will guide them, and they ended being really blessed because they were now reading something they were understanding and they become more productive in their devotion and meditation, but what i also device from time to time try to see what other versions says to try get a better idea, and it works. My English isn't the best, but i think it can be understood.
Thanks for your comment. I also do not like when people debate the “best” versions. I agree that God can be known through any version.
I made this video specifically because the ESV has made intentionally misleading translation choices to support a theology that is not present in the text. In other words, they are “false and intentionally wrong” translations, to use your wording. I want people to be aware of these problems so that when they do read the ESV, they realize that the translation may not be representing the text accurately.
Thanks for watching and commenting. And your English is great and understandable! :)
Your English is pretty good and this post is very well written. I agree 100% with you, people should read whatever they're comfortable with. It's also nice to read different translations to see the difference. So far, I have the KJV(my first), ESV, and currently I'm on the NKJV, I plan on reading all and maybe I might read the Catholic bible for fun to see what's different. God bless you friend, your English is great.
May God bless you for your faithfulness!
I have the original French version of the Jerusalem Bible. My French is reasonably good and I quite enjoy reading it. If I read a passage which I know well, it improves my French!
@@777Bible The Catholic Church (in England and Wales and many other English speaking countries) currently uses the RSV and will shortly adopt the ESV - so a “Catholic” Bible is no different to the Bible used by most Protestant Churches.
You can pick up every single translation of the Bible, and find a handful of occasions where you’re not too happy. EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION! This is a futile exercise.
I agree with you, often times people just like finding issues with translations. You will notice that I have not done this for other translations. The reason being, most other translations aren’t breaking basic translation rules in specific and targeted verses that create problems for the translators theology. There is a reason many of these choices didn’t exist until now, and that is because these choices are illegitimate options.
Thanks for watching.
I have more translations that agree with the ESV than disagree on most of the verses mentioned in this video. The only translation that consistently agree with your video are the NRSV and NIV that I read regularly. The more literal translation like ESV, NASB, LSB, NKJV are pretty consistent on those verses. It appears that your video has an agenda as well.
When I begin discussing deacon/servant, I flat out state that other translations have the same problems that the ESV does. That said, when you look at Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:17, you will find that most translations translate the prepositions consistently and differently than the ESV does. As I said, virtually every translation has “for” instead of “contrary to” and many have “among” instead of “notable to.”
Rom 16:7
NASB95 Greet Andronicus and 1Junias, my kinsmen and my bellow prisoners, who are outstanding *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me”
NKJV Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Gen 3:16
NASB
Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And bhe will rule over you.
NKJV
Your desire shall be *for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
I do not deny my agenda, which is stated in the title and throughout the video, pointing out the problems with the ESV and how those problems negatively affect women and men.
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for your response. I do hold an egalitarian view because I believe the Bible as a whole supports that view. I don’t think you need the verses you mention to have an egalitarian view. It is also wrong to tweak translations to fit a viewpoint. I tend to agree with the translation choices of the more literal translations like the ESV, NASB 2020, LSB, CSB and the below quoted NET Bible.
You mention Genesis 3:16 and how the ESV used contrary. I tend to agree with the ESV view which is also in line with the NET Bible. I think two things happened as a result of the fall. The woman will want to control her husband and the husband will dominate over her. Control and dominate were not mentioned before the fall.
Romans 16:1
Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:1.
tn Or “deaconess.” It is debated whether διάκονος (diakonos) here refers to a specific office within the church. One contextual argument used to support this view is that Phoebe is associated with a particular church, Cenchrea, and as such would therefore be a deacon of that church. In the NT some who are called διάκονος are related to a particular church, yet the scholarly consensus is that such individuals are not deacons, but “servants” or “ministers” (other viable translations for διάκονος). For example, Epaphras is associated with the church in Colossians and is called a διάκονος in Col 1:7, but no contemporary translation regards him as a deacon. In 1 Tim 4:6 Paul calls Timothy a διάκονος; Timothy was associated with the church in Ephesus, but he obviously was not a deacon. In addition, the lexical evidence leans away from this view: Within the NT, the διακον- word group rarely functions with a technical nuance. In any case, the evidence is not compelling either way. The view accepted in the translation above is that Phoebe was a servant of the church, not a deaconess, although this conclusion should be regarded as tentative.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).
Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ro 16:7.
tn Or “prominent, outstanding, famous.” The term ἐπίσημος (episēmos) is used either in an implied comparative sense (“prominent, outstanding”) or in an elative sense (“famous, well known”). The key to determining the meaning of the term in any given passage is both the general context and the specific collocation of this word with its adjuncts. When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).
1 Tim 3:11-12
Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), 1 Ti 3:11.
tn Or “also deaconesses.” The Greek word here is γυναῖκας (gunaikas) which literally means “women” or “wives.” It is possible that this refers to women who serve as deacons, “deaconesses.” The evidence is as follows: (1) The immediate context refers to deacons; (2) the author mentions nothing about wives in his section on elder qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7); (3) it would seem strange to have requirements placed on deacons’ wives without corresponding requirements placed on elders’ wives; and (4) elsewhere in the NT, there seems to be room for seeing women in this role (cf. Rom 16:1 and the comments there). The translation “wives”-referring to the wives of the deacons-is probably to be preferred, though, for the following reasons: (1) It would be strange for the author to discuss women deacons right in the middle of the qualifications for male deacons; more naturally they would be addressed by themselves. (2) The author seems to indicate clearly in the next verse that women are not deacons: “Deacons must be husbands of one wife.” (3) Most of the qualifications given for deacons elsewhere do not appear here. Either the author has truncated the requirements for women deacons, or he is not actually referring to women deacons; the latter seems to be the more natural understanding. (4) The principle given in 1 Tim 2:12 appears to be an overarching principle for church life which seems implicitly to limit the role of deacon to men. Nevertheless, a decision in this matter is difficult, and our conclusions must be regarded as tentative.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).
Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Ge 3:16.
tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (téshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition. (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).
@@donmoe3083 thank you for this - it was very helpful and great for further study.
@@donmoe3083Thanks for the NET Bible quotes. Very insightful. I mostly appreciate your balanced, reasonable view of translations and theology. If we need a few particular renderings to support our theology, we're likely not developing our theology properly. God bless.
yeah, this brother seems to be speaking in truth
Since this video is comparing the ESV to the NRSV and noting departures from the literal text, it seems disingenuous to ignore the fact that in the very same verse, 1 Tim 3:12 the NRSV changes “husband of one wife” (μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα) to “married once” removing an explicitly male reference.
Hello, thank you so much for your comment. I was not specifically talking about the NRSV, and so discussing the NRSV’s departures from the Greek text was not the focus of this video. The NRSV was actually just an stand in English version. That said, leading Greek scholarship argues that this reference is not actually gender specific. So, the NRSV’s choice is rooted in that information. This phrase is actually how one talks about someone being faithful to their spouse, and there are multiple inscriptions they cite as evidence. Note that below it says, “he or she was married only once.” In other words, this is not specifically a “male” reference (There is a reason in my video I say that these deacons are “seemingly” men. The ESV has interpreted this phrase as a male referent, and chosen to translate it deacon when in reality this phrase too suggest that the passage is not male specific). I would have liked to discuss this in the video, but I was trying to keep it short and not overly technical.
“μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16-29. For the use of μία in ref. to a woman: Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 346 ” (BDAG, εἷς,μία, ἕν, gen. ἑνός, μιᾶς, ἑνός)
Thanks for your comment and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD I appreciate your response but I feel like saying “Greek scholarship” does not agree that the deacon is male is an overstatement. The NRSV is in a very small minority of translations (in both number and use) that do not explicitly identify the Decon as male. If you fault the ESV for it you also have to condemn the host of witnesses in nearly every other major translation. The RSV, NIV84, NIV2011, CSB 2017, CSB 2020, KJV, NKJV, NASB 95, NASB2020, LEB, BSB, ASV, NET and NLT So this “problem” exists in nearly EVERY major modern translation. I can’t see anyone accepting that so many widely used translations all conspired together and got this wrong.
@@babylonsfall7 Maybe not at your church ... we have a board of deacons and a board of elders ... just like the early church did.
Correct. It's not translation bias if it fits Bible Geek's woke agenda.
I agree. I have been learning a lot about the various translations lately and I have seen many videos against the ESV, like this one……. AND also some very convincing videos talking about similar translation problems/biases in the NRSV (“men who engage in illicit sex”…). It feels like political infighting unfortunately and becomes hard to know who to trust. I just want an accurate Bible, but all the “experts” point me in confusing directions. I guess I just need to learn Greek myself???
The ESV calls Titus and co "messengers" but not apostles in 2 Cor 8:23, as they do with Epaphroditus in Phil 2:25. They do call Jesus an apostle in Heb 3:1, despite apostelos being used in all these passages. It seems like Crossway took a conservative approach to church roles in general. If they depart from their translation philosophy to make it seem like men weren't apostles, why do you think it would be inconsistent for them to do the same with women?
This is a deeply misleading video and you appear to have assumed malice and prejudice rather than acknowledge the sincere scholarly disagreement as to how these verses should be rendered. Whether you agree or disagree, all of the ESV translations you have cited are legitimate renderings of the texts. First, in Genesis 3:16, the word at issue is not the preposition אֵל but the Hebrew word for "desire" תְּשׁוּקָה - teshuqah). This is a very rare word that appears in the Old Testament only three times (Gen. 3.16, 4.7, Song 7.10). However, the use of the word in Genesis 3:16 is closely paralleled to its use one chapter later in Genesis 4:7, and that is the best place to look to figure out what it means in Gen. 3:16.
In Genesis 3:16 Eve is told her desire will be for/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) her husband and he will rule over (מָשַׁל)her. In Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and that sin's "desire is for you/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) you, but you must rule over (מָשַׁל) it." Note the identical pairing of "desire" and "rule" in both passages. Whatever "desire" means in one it probably means in the other.
Some would read the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as sexual desire, but that is impossible in Genesis 4:7 (not to mention that would make a woman's sexual desire for her husband a curse, which contradicts the rest of scripture). Instead, "desire for" in both passages seem to be the desire to overcome/control. This is certainly the best interpretation of Genesis 4:7 and makes the most sense in Genesis 3:16. Indeed, it has been argued that even the usage of the word (תְּשׁוּקָה) in Song of Solomon 7:10 conveys the desire to control/dominate in the man's desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman. Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
I think the NET's rendering of Genesis 3:16 "you will want to control your husband" is probably the most accurate to meaning of the Hebrew, but the ESV's "your desire will be contrary to your husband" is still much better than the traditional "your desire shall be for your husband." Either way, the ESV reading is certainly justifiable and has scholarly research to support it. As an aside, I find Ben Witherington's take on gender issues unconvincing at best and intentionally biased at worst (likely as an outgrowth of trying to make the text fit his charismatic views, but that's another topic entirely).
Second, to read the γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11-12 as female deacons seems to do violence to the natural reading of the text. To interpret it in this manner requires us to assume that Paul wrote 1. a series of qualifications for male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 2. a separate verse of qualification for female deacons in in 1 Timothy 3:11-2, followed by 3. a new qualification for only male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12. It's a very awkward way of reading the text that makes little to no logical sense. It's also very strange to me that you make such a big deal about "their" not being in the Greek when (as I'm sure you know) translators always supply words that are not in the original text for clarity and we could create a massive list for every translation in existence.
Regarding Romans 16:1, there is nothing inconsistent in translating διάκονος as "servant" rather than "deacon" here, since it is frequently difficult to tell whether a formal office is meant in most of the New Testament use of the word. We can certainly find inconsistencies in how this word is rendered across translations. For instance, the Greek of Colossians 1:17 refers to Epaphras as a διάκονος, yet the NRSV renders the word as "minister" in that verse while rendering the same word as "deacon" in Romans 16:1.
Turning to the famous example of Junias, the debate is certainly not closed on whether Junias is a male or female name. First, we do have examples of Greek Church Fathers who read the name as masculine ,such as the 4th century father Epiphanius. Notably, in his s Index discipulorum 125, Epiphanius not only described Junias as a man (as indicated by the masculine pronoun) but also provides a seemingly independent tradition that Junias became Bishop of Apameia in Armenia. While it is hard to say how much weight should be placed on this tradition, it does imply that Epiphanius was certainly not alone in understanding Junias as a man and that there appears to have been a larger ecclesiastical tradition regarding Junias' subsequent ministry. Aside from this witness, there is also the intriguing suggestion that Junias may have been an adhoc translation of the Hebrew name Yehunni. See Albert Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yehunni,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 397-408. However, assuming that Junias is a female name, the issue comes down to whether ἐπίσημος should be read in the comparative or elative sense. I quote the NET's footnote because I feel it expresses the issue best: "When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here." Personally, I find Burer and Wallace's survey of the extant Greek evidence convincing. I would also note that the 2020 update of the NASB agrees with the elative sense and renders the verse in question "outstanding in the view of the apostles."
There are pros and cons to the renderings above, but they are all legitimate translation decisions rooted in defensible readings of the texts. To claim that the ESV has intentionally misread or mistranslated the verses in question is very unfair and deeply uncharitable. All translations have biases (and there are several translation choices I could critique in the ESV). However, you seem completely uninterested in understanding the debate surrounding these verses and far more interested in impugning the motives of the ESV translators.
Thanks for watching and for the thorough comment.
To put it bluntly, the ESV team has openly admitted to their prejudice. You can find these details in my sources in the video description. Your appeal to scholarship and legitimate debates are always welcome, as I am a Bible scholar and that’s what we do often. That said, the choices the ESV makes are the minority position among scholars and when vetted are found wanting. And, the NET notes and translation that the ESV usually follows are also found wanting.
The Gen 3:16 translation is certainly more complex than my video had time to address, but the scholarship that the NET uses to justify their change, which the ESV only followed in 2016, is not convincing. The NET and some commentators draw on an article that is significantly flawed and they ignore a much better article from the JBL in 2011 (which is one of the leading peer reviewed journals in the world). I will probably make a video on this, because I have gotten so many comments about this. So, in the next year, may make the video.
Similarly, your mention of the Burer and Wallace article is straight from the NET notes as well. These notes, like the notes on Gen 3:16, when vetted also are found wanting. What is missing from that discussion is the follow up articles and books from other scholars debunking Wallace and Burer’s claims. Their arguments are also found to be significantly flawed. You can see that scholarship mentioned in my videos on women in ministry.
At the end of the day, in the 1990’s people made a big deal about gender neutral language in the Bible, and feminism corrupting the Bible translation teams, and such, and so now we are left with translations teams and scholars trying to backwardly write women out of the text and argue the language supports their bad translations, when for centuries no one made these arguments (see my women in ministry videos). In fact, people who read and spoke Greek in the centuries after the NT understood Junia as an apostle. But, the NET notes won’t tell you that because they are seemingly just as slanted at the ESV, but a bit more honest because they at least give you their own one-sided argument.
I may also make a video on the NET, but it will take more time and research, so I will have to wait on that until I finish writing my dissertation, haha.
When I get time, I may come back to this comment and cite the articles that conflict with the NET and ESV position, but at the moment I have to get ready for church. Grace and peace! And thanks for watching.
I just finished reading the "desire" section of your comment. Thanks for that, that actually makes sense.
@avivastudios2311 thank you, I'm glad you found my comment helpful
Only the NIV and RSV variants translate Romans 16:1 as deacon. All of the other major translations say servant.
This is why in he video I say something like “other translations have this problem as well.”
Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD I don't know man sounds like a "the vast majority of scholars and theologians throughout all of Christian history including today are wrong and I'm right" sorta vibe
Yeah, many older bible expositors knew Greek and Hebrew very well. Martin Luther used the Latin and German because of his background, but John Calvin exclusively, from many sources, used only the Greek New Testament and Hebrew Old Testament and you would assume he would have picked up on these “gender biases”, if not him than certainly his detractors. It seems more reasonable to conclude that this is a modern bias within the last few decades.
I think you miss something big when explaining your issue with the Genesis translation. It's that Gen 3:16 and 4:7 have very similar wording. The woman has a desire for her husband, and sin has desire for Cain. So the other time that the ESV uses contrary to instead of for is completely consistent with the context in 3:16.
If we say sin has a desire for a person, we see that rightly as a something negative. Saying sin desires contrary to you seems like a fair reading here in Gen 4:7. But it is an almost identical phrasing to Gen 3:16.
It obscures the obvious relevance of this to point out that 5000 other times they translate the word differently with only one exception, without noting that the one exception is crucial to our understanding of the passage.
I am well aware of the verse, as everyone and the brother leaves comments about it. Haha I was also well aware when making the video.
I don’t address it because, what you have presented (which many think, so it’s understandable) is not how language, translation, and interpretation work.
As you point out, “if we say sin has a desire for a person, we rightly see that as something negative.”
However, this logic should not affect Gen 3:16. We should not say that a “woman’s desire for her husband, we right see that as something negative.”
Of course sin desires for Cain something bad, but the hermeneutical choice to assert that the woman desires something bad for her husband is not justified. When you read a story, you would read chapter 3 before 4. As a result the statement in 3:16 would influence 4:7. The woman’s “desire for” is perfectly fine and neutral, good or not bad, but then in chapter 4, after the fall, we see the consequences of the fall, and sin has a negative desire for Cain. Sin has twisted the narrative and now acting with agency.
And, as you point out, the Cain verse is understandable with “for” and that is because that is the appropriate translation choice. “Contrary to” is such a bogus translation that is only used to skew Gen 3:16, so much so that it only appears one other place. I am sorry, but that is just not good translation practice. There is a reason no one made this choice for, literally thousands of years, it’s because it’s not a legitimate choice. What’s tragic is, the translators have made the women about to be tantamount to sin … yikes.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD In fact, that exactly how both language and translation work.
1. Immediate context always colors how we view a person's word choice or phrasing, and
2. Similar constructions are often translated similarly, therefore
3. It is important to note, when emphasizing that there is only one other example of the ESV translating a word in a certain way, to point out that it was an exception that was very relevant to the case in point. As per your response, apparently "everyone and the brother" thinks so as well.
4. Translating "contrary to" certainly would need a language note, as it is making a choice of how to present the word here, but translators make such choices constantly. Nothing bogus about it.
Thanks for responding.
"Known to" and "known among" are not necessarily different, at least in English. If I say "Einstein's field equations are well known among cosmologists" it does not imply that the equations *are* cosmologists. Same if I say that so and so is well known among the local law enforcement community. So and so could be a well known criminal and the sentence still works.
The problem is not the difference in English, it is the difference in Greek. Their choice does not represent the Greek, and this is demonstrated by the over 100 times the translate the Greek phrase correctly.
Thanks for watching.
The translation choice of Gen 3:16 in the Esv 2016 translation is adopted from NET translation.
Yes, I imagine the NET is why they made the change. It is unfortunate that they did, because the NET's choice was based on old scholarship from the 1970's that had a narrow research scope. Meanwhile in 2011, a much more thorough article was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature that concludes much differently.
@@biblegeekPhD Well said - I appreciate your clarity here
”Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.“
1 Timothy 3:11-12 KJV
That is indeed the KJV.
@@biblegeekPhD The KJV is not hard to read or understand if studied out with the teaching coming from the Holy Spirit.
I have studied for years with the ESV, NASB95, NLT, NIV, and in the end, I fell back to the faithful KJV and the NKJV.
Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.
Great video, I am actually in shock to find out that the ESV edition had these distinctions. By the way 2 months ago I started learning Greek. But the original new testament bible is in Koine Greek. So if you learn Greek most likely you'll be learning it in Modern Greek. How far apart is koine Greek compared to Modern Greek. When I was looking at John versus 1 the only common words I noticed were logos and kai for and. My Greek isn't the greatest but how far apart is the Koine version compared to the modern version? Thank you.
Modern Greek and Koine Greek are not that far apart linguistically. A modern Greek person could read the GNT and understand it, most of the time. It would read like slightly older English than the KJV or something like that. That being said, there are definitely unique things about koine that should be learned.
Glad you’re learning Greek! Good luck!
@@biblegeekPhD Hey! Thank you for the perspective. That is an excellent comparison. At the moment I am at an A2 level in Greek, hopefully in 6 months I will reach a B1 level, hopefully and thanks once again.
Nothing is always the best translation. ESV seeks a balance between literal transfusion and original meaning.
If only everyone knew Greek and Hebrew.
This video is quite misleading. For example, to people who don't know Greek, it can seem like the ESV added a possessive pronoun out of nowhere. However, this is something that is required by the English language. In Greek, possessive pronouns can be implied, but they can't in English, so when rendering the phrase in English, the possessive pronoun has to be supplied. This is basic to Koine Greek grammar and is done very frequently in all English translations. The video accuses the ESV of being disingenuous, but either the maker of this video doesn't have a good understanding of Greek or is himself being disingenuous.
Similarly, prepositional phrases are the most difficult part of translating between any two languages. The way the ESV rendered it in both instances mentioned in this video are viable options, though they are debated. With the words διακονος and αποστολος, the video commits the fallacy known as "illegitimate totality transfer." These are words with multiple glosses in English and choosing the correct gloss depends on context. In both cases mentioned in the video, the ESV appears to me to have chosen the correct gloss, though it is debatable. Overall, this video treats the ESV quite unfairly, and people not trained in the original languages won't be able to spot the fallacies. The ESV among many others is a reliable translation of the Bible into English, and it is worthy of our trust. Sadly, people who watch this video will be left with the opposite impression.
There is no denying that many of its translators are associated with the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so there is legitimate bias present, even if that bias is supported by genuine scholarship. It's just as biased in one direction as the NRSV is biased in the opposite direction, which is why I'd recommend using them together rather than apart. (Granted, what translation isn't biased somehow?)
Hi Jared, thanks for watching and for your comment. :)
I am actually a Greek professor, I have been reading Greek for over a decade, and I have an intimate knowledge of two different basic grammars that I have taught through multiple times. Neither grammar teaches that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. I wonder what basic grammar you learned that in.
I also wonder what gave you that impression. Here are some thoughts. A word can be possessive if it is genitive and an English translator may add a possessive pronoun there sometimes (a possessive “s” or “of” also works), but that’s not an implied possessive pronoun, that’s a possessive genitive, and that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. Or maybe you have seen translators supply pronouns to verbs to communicate first or second or third person, that’s acceptable, but again, that’s not what’s going on in 1 Tim 3:11. So, when a pronoun is supplied in English, it has a syntactical or grammatical explanation. This one in 1 Tim 3:11 doesn’t. It’s not a possessive genitive or something else.
Let’s also talk about my “Illegitimate totality transference.” That is when you import all potential meanings of a word into a single context. For me to have done this, I would have had to argue that the word should be translated “deacon AND servant” in each usage. I argued that it is understood as “deacon,” that’s only one gloss, and thus I have not fallen prey to an illegitimate totality transference. :)
I am glad you know Greek. Seriously, keep up the great work. I only critique the ESV because it has multiple problems recognized by numerous scholars and I care that the Bible is faithfully translated and interpreted. I am by no means the first one to point this out. You’re welcome to check out the notable resources section in the video description.
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for the reply, but I'm surprised that you don't know what I am talking about when I say that possessive pronouns are implied in Greek. Here are just a few examples: Ephesians 5:25, 1 Corinthians 7:13, Acts 10:34. In each of these examples, there is no possessive pronoun before wives, husband or mouth. However, if we don't add the possessive pronoun in English, the sentence becomes unintelligible.
Also, thanks for the clarification on the ITT. That's probably not the right name for the fallacy you committed, but it is still fallacious to say that if a word frequently is glossed one way, it should always be glossed that way. Διακονος can and does mean servant and αποστολος can and does mean messanger. The challenge of translation is you have to make choices. In both these cases, the ESV made justifiable choices.
It seems like you have a particular doctrinal perspective that you want to push, and you seem willing to damage Christians' trust in their ability to understand the Bible rightly for themselves in order to push your perspective. Please be very careful about that. God's Word is clear. No translation is perfect, but you don't have to know Greek and Hebrew in order to read God's Word.
Just had a look at my ESV - it has footnotes to outline the other possible translations - such as Deaconess for Roman’s 16 and “Or Wives likewise, or Women likewise” for 1 Timothy 3.
The original meaning of diakonos from Roman’s 16 is a servant, attendant, minister.
So it’s possible that it refers to either the formal role of deacon, or the simple version of servant. The best word for word translation therefore IS servant so I’d say in that circumstance the ESV is doing exactly what it set out to do.
The good thing about the ESV is that it’s honest enough to give you all the options in the footnotes so you know there are other possibilities and then leaves you to attempt to choose the most appropriate definition.
Just to clarify, when a lexicon or interlinear gives a definition, it is just a gloss. It could be servant or attendant or minister or something else, we have to use context to determine what the best translation is. A consistent translator will translate word consistently in similar contexts. In this video I was simply pointing out the inconsistency of the ESV. If in one context they choose servant or deacon, they should choose that in other similar contexts, but they don’t. That is the problem. Essentially, the use the term one way for women, and another way for men, but the contexts are similar, and thus they should be translated similarly.
Also, the idea that there can be a literal word for word translation isn’t accurate to translation. Language is not like a simple math problem, and the translation choices will always have variation and difference. One word in Greek may take 3 words in English, and vis verse. So, saying a word literally means one thing is not really how translation works. It’s more like, these words work to gather to communicate this or that idea and we have to choose the words that best communicate that idea in a new language.
Christian translations of the scriptures have been wrong for centuries? That is the message I get from your video.
I'm not going to start using the NRSV. The ESV is not my favorite translations, so I have no axe to grind.
Woke Christianity disqualifies Christianity. I reject it.
Thanks for watching.
Definitely every Bible translation team has its biases that will come through in the final product. The NRSV you cite (which I also use a lot) consistently gives translations that obscure traditional supports for high christology (as in Rom 9:5; Daniel 7:13, etc) - but it is still a decent translation. In all these cases, however (as with the ESVs use of “servant” in Rom 16 or “wives” in 1 Tim 3 - the rendering is technically correct, even if it may not exactly communicate the original meaning. That’s why it is always good to study with more than one translation. I think the ESV and NRSV are a good pairing precisely because the translations are so similar for the most part - those places where the “biases are showing” (on both sides) come through more clearly.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Indeed the NRSV also has its own problems. I only used the NRSV in parallel because they are both updates to the RSV. Glad you use multiple translations. :)
St Jerome translated Rom 16:1 as minister. He was closer in time to the early church to know what those categories meant. I think you are imposing your 21st century view on the text.
I didn’t have time to delve into that intricacies of the term, but I would agree that minister is another great way of translating the term. :)
In my next video, I will be talking more about 1 Rom 16:1 and I will also talk about other patristic writers. So be sure to check that video out. Thanks for watching and commenting.
likewise in the Darby translation.
I disagree with Bible Geek on some points. The original text says "wives", ESV retained it as such while NRSV changed it to "women". The adding of "their" does not change the meaning but the changing of "wives" to "women" significantly alters the meaning of the text. Remember this text is talking about deacons and the fact they they have to be husbands of one wife. When it goes on to mention "wives", it is clearly referring to the wives of the deacons, thus "their" wives. Bible Geek clearly has an agenda and it is barely hidden. I would never encourage anybody to depend on NRSV for proper bible study. I have never had any serious believer recommend it. It is NRSV that has serious issues with it's deliberate agenda for "gender-neutral language".
Take for instance this passage in Psalms 8. In ESV it is rendered as " what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor"
NRSV renders it as, "What are human beings that you are mindful of them, or mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor."
NRSV not only changes the nouns to plural but also makes them gender neutral. More troubling is that the term "son of man" is rendered as mortals. We no that "Son of Man" is a Messianic title and to replace it with "mortals" is to subtly attack the divinity of Christ. There are far more problems with NRSV and I don't encourage any believer to use it for bible study.
The Greek word can be translated as either woman or wife. The choice of the NRSV and similar translations to make 3:11 general about “women” is justifiable. Essentially, v. 11 is switching from talking about men Deacons, to now “in the same way, women must be dignified …” So, scholars have translated it that way because of linguistic and contextual reasons. You’re welcome to disagree, but there are legitimate reasons for the translation.
Also, while the NRSV is not perfect, it is actually the translation used in academic circles, those who study the Bible professionally. For example, the Society of Biblical Literature Study Bible is a NRSVue. The study notes are all done by world class Bible scholars. Moreover the Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also NRSV. I should add, many of the scholars who work on these study bibles are “serious believers,” and many are even clergy. So, many serious believers actually use the NRSV for serious Bible study. While I am not some NRSV advocate, it is a fine translation, just like many others.
Thanks for watching.
exactly
You have convinced me to get an ESV, thanks for the help.
You’re welcome, glad you are reading the Bible. :)
I'm missing the part where you explain why we should trust the NRSV (of all things) over the ESV in the first place...
Did you watch the end of the video where I recommend using multiple translations?
The NRSV is placed in parallel to the ESV, not because it is superior, but because it is an update to the RSV like the ESV. And, while I can read Greek and Hebrew, most can’t, so I needed another translation a to discuss the issues with the ESV.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Non-greek-reader here. In Bible college, I was taught (hopefully, correctly) that the word "deacon" is an English transliteration of the Greek word "διακονέω"
(i.e., the English translators made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters), but it is correctly translated "servant".
It appeared that the early church created a special class of official servants called... SERVANTS! (or, deacons).
I was also taught (again, hopefully, correctly) that when the translators came to the Greek word βαπτίζω, ("baptizo"), they didn't translate it because of disputes over whether it should be translated "immerse", "sprinkle", "pour" or something else, so, again, they made up a new English word by spelling the Greek word with English letters, hence "baptize".
You can see more my thoughts on the word deacon in my videos on women in ministry. There I talk more about its translation.
I was also taught something similar about baptize, but I have never looked into it as an academic. I will say, the word deacon is used liberally to encompass a whole host of bathing actions, whether they be full immersion or something else. And, in the didache, and early Christian text, actually explains baptism in the early church, and they recognized a whole host of methods (read here about it www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html) (read the text here www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html).
While I certainly appreciate the time you took to make this video and to point out some of the things that stand out as flawed in the ESV, I'll simply say that from a simple layperson's point of view, I think Satan is using all of the differences in different Bible translations to divide the church, and to distract us from what really matters. Specifically to Romans 16:3, we're talking about a personal greeting from Paul. I am really struggling to find anything in this verse that matters to me personally, and can be used to apply to my life from a spiritual perspective. With regards to memorization of Bible verses. Well, I grew up reading the Good News Bible back in the 70's and 80's. I came back to the church in the 90's and used the NIV. Then the NIV isn't good anymore, because they updated the 1984 version to something else, so now I need to use the NKJV. The church I was attending 10 years ago used the HCSB. Now my pastor uses the ESV. I mean, what's next when someone decides two obscure words in the ESV that don't match a Biblical worldview of the interpreter? And you are comparing it to the NRSV? I don't know anyone using the NRSV for various reasons. What is concerning to me is that I am wasting time watching videos like this, and distracting myself from hearing from God on what truly matters. Sure, we absolutely need to make sure that the translations of the Bible are accurate and relay the message that God wants us to hear. But I honestly think we're splitting hairs and wasting time away from where we should be spending our time and attention to.
I also find the debating of Bible translations to be a serious distraction used to divide. You won’t find me debating which translation is better of something like that.
The reason I chose to make this video is because these issues have real consequences and demonstrate a consistent goal: obscuring texts that could be used to support women in leadership and other related topics.
The verses surveyed in this video demonstrate that the ESV’s aim was not only to translate the Bible, it was to also support a predetermined theology. That is not how translation is supposed to work.
Imagine with me you grew up your whole life believing that Gen 3:16 shows that women disobeying their husbands was a consequence of the fall “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall krule over you.” This verse comes as one of the curses that is presented after the fall, and the woman is depicted as being obstinate and contrary to her husband. Thus, women’s rightful place is not being contrary to her husband.
And yet, virtually every other translation actually depicts the woman in a positive light.” Yet your desire will be *for your husband, And he will rule over you.” (NASB) here the woman desires her husband, and tragically, instead of desiring her back, he dominates and rules her. This reveals the patriarchy and male domination is a result of the fall, not women’s contrariness.
The ESV has changed one small word, and it results in a completely different outcome, and one that harms women and men. I, for one, think this kind of thing matters a lot, and people should be aware of it.
If you watched to the end of the video, I lift up reading multiple translations, and indicate that no translation is perfect. I stand by that. The ESV is one voice in the choir of voices. If the ESV is singing a song, some of its notes change the tune, in subtle ways, but those subtitles change the song, and it detracts from the completed result.
Anyway, thanks for watching and commenting.
great reply. as a "newer" christian looking to find the best bible for me, i can't help but wonder maybe all these KJV fanatics are on to something. why would God make it so difficult to pick a bible? that just seems odd to me and not fair. how can every bible be flawed? why would He do that? @@biblegeekPhD
People are likely to latch onto the familiar. For instance, the best way to translate John 3:16 starts with, not "For God so loved the world" but "For this is the way God loved the world". There IS a difference, but translators know that if they don't do it in the familiar fashion, nobody will buy the Bible or use it anyway... sad... This translation was created to appeal to a market, not to be an accurate 21st century English translation... at all.
All you need to know about the supposedly new translation called the ESV is revealed in the copyright info. It is "adapted from" the RSV, not a new translation at all. They licensed the RSV and made it appealing to the complementarian, patriarchal base that was angry about the TNIV.
And frankly, Crossway created this translation as a reaction against "inclusive language" (and other concerns) in other modern translations (too bad, because inclusive language is actually the correct way to translate into 21st century English).
Their traditionalist agenda made it impossible for them to practice any kind of intellectual rigor with regard to translation, already deciding beforehand how they would translate, in essence... rendering the translation useless or worse to any serious student or preacher of Scripture.
Spot on! Thanks for watching and commenting! :)
The ESV does not deliberately skewer the text; it largely falls in line with the tradition of the King James Bible and adopts most of the methods of translation. I feel you bring a bias to the other translation examples, which cast the ESV in the wrong light. Everyone agrees 1 Tim chapter 3 is written in the context of "the office" of a deacon, as it does for an Bishop/Overseer (επισκοπος), but you avoided mentioning that. It also represents a later structure in the church than Romans 16:1, which is why some critics reject Timothy as Pauline. The other example of Romans 16:7 can easily be translated either way; to say that it's because it's in the dative case does not change the translation. First context, Andronicus and Junia(n) were Paul's kinfolk and "apostles" in Christ before him. If they were in the church before Paul, they would have been Jewish and not Gentile. So, how likely was it then to have an ordained female apostle within the Jewish patriarchy? Afterward, The phrase "εν τοις αποστολοις"can very easily be translated "to the apostles", just as when Paul says in 1 Gal 1:16 "that I might preach him (Christ) εν τοις εθνεσιν (to the Gentiles)". It's often translated "among", however "to the gentiles" does not change the meaning. The best argument for Junia as a female apostle does not come from the grammar, but the testimony of St. John Chrysostom.
Thanks for watching and for leaving a comment. The ESV is actually supposed to be an update of the RSV, so it’s not really in “the tradition of the KJV.” You can see this story detailed in Perry’s article in the video description.
I am well aware of the arguments about 1 Tim, authorship, and ecclesial structure. I didn’t have space to discuss any of that. The goal was simply to point out the inconsistencies in translation choices. I would argue that Rom 16 is presenting people in similar positions to what is described in 1 Tim. I do plan on making a video series about women in the Bible and women in ministry, so look out for those.
The best argument for Junia being a woman is that every manuscript has Junia, so there are none with a man’s name. There was a theory concocted in the 1800’s that argued that this name was a contraction of the masculine Junias … but there isn’t good evidence for this. So, church history and manuscript evidence support Junia being a woman. I would suggest reading the book mentioned in the video by Epp on the subject. Or if you want an overview, see the article by Belleville in the video description. Additionally, Belleville explains why the εν prepositional phrase should not be translated “to.” I find your mention of Gal 1:16 interesting because the ESV there translates it “among.”
Anyway, thanks for your comment and watching. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text.
@@biblegeekPhD I'm sure you agree the RSV is a revision of the KJV. Just a note, yes the ESV translates Gal; 1:16 as "among" by nuance of language, but not exclusive to the meaning of "to the".
Well, the RSV was actually a revision of the ASV. I mean, basically all modern English Bible are standing on the shoulders of the KJV. So, associating the ESV with the KJV isn’t that significant. That said, the KJV translates Rom 16:7 and also Gal 1:16 great. The ESV’s choices I highlight in the video, not so much. Thanks for commenting and chatting. :)
@@biblegeekPhD Gupta is an excellent scholar and a true boon to the church at large - great job pointing out his work 🙂
@@dustinburlet7249 indeed, I plan on drawing from his work in a future video series on women and the Bible.
I’m seeing comments suggesting the gentlemen in the video “has malice” and “an agenda”. It blows me away that anyone could think such nonsense. He is sharing an opinion and if you actually listen to what he is saying you will find that he is innocently presenting a juxtaposition of translation. You may disagree with his view but it’s quite cruel the way some of you are going about it. Act your faith not your sin
Thanks for watching and commenting. :)
can't find a nickel's worth of difference between known to the brothers and known among the brothers.
Doesn’t seem like much a difference, until people start arguing that they weren’t apostles based on that translation. So I guess pennies of difference add up over time. Haha. Thanks for watching and commenting. :)
@@biblegeekPhD Are you saying they had the apostolic office? Like Paul-Peter-James apostles?
@@toddthacker8258 Paul's explanation suggest that, and early church interpretation also suggests that. This is why Dr. Lin confidently explains in her 2020 JBL article that, “All grammatical, morphological, and historical evidence … point to a prominent woman apostle named Junia. In the context of Paul’s emphatic and sometimes strident defense and his claims of unique apostleship and authority, we can confidently understand Junia as an apostle before Paul.”(Lin, “Junia: An Apostle before Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature (2020) 139 (1): 209).
@@biblegeekPhD Are we talking about a different type of apostle? Because as far as I know Andronicus wasn't an apostle either, if we're talking about the small group of 12 + Paul.
@@toddthacker8258 the 12 + Paul isn't what Paul claims constitutes "apostle." 1 Cor 15:5-8 Paul explains that Jesus "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." So here Paul mentions that apostles being broader than the 12 + Paul because he has already mentioned the 12, and then he adds James and all the other apostles. The implication is that an apostle was more than the 12 + Paul.
This is why John Chrysostom says in the 4th century, “Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle.”
1. The ESV doesn't claim to be "Word for word" Crossways states this in its description of the ESV. "It embraces a word-for-word, or 'essentially literal,' translation philosophy. The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks, as far as possible, to reproduce the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer."
2. The only literal, word for word English language Bible I have ever found it "Young's Literal Translation". It is extremely difficult to read.
3. I like the ESV because it is one of the few English Bibles that incorporate the texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls wherever possible.
4. I agree, you should always use multiple Bibles when doing serious Bible study OR just buy Logos software.
Hi, thanks for your comment and for watching.
To point 1, if you weren’t aware, the language displayed in the video is from the ESV/crossway website. So I am specifically using their language.
Point 2, as a Greek professor, I actually don’t think any translation can ever be “literal” or “word-for-word.” I do think a translation can accurately represent the text, but that won’t be word for word, and there is a lot of variability in that representation. I think the ESV overstates it’s aims, and then doesn’t live up to them. Further, in the places I point out, they are not accurately representing the text.
Point 3, the ESV is not the only English translation that incorporates that kind of text critical information. Most modern English Bibles will pull from that info.
To point 4, yes, a Bible software is helpful. I prefer Accordance, but Logos has many strengths. If I was more tech savvy, I would use Logos, but I find accordance so much more user friendly.
Thanks for you comment :)
@@biblegeekPhD I knew you were a man of letters from your loquacious comment replies. A professor of Greek makes perfect sense👍
The Rom 16:7 translation is correct. I suggest paper "Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7 by Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace" (available online)
"In sum, our examination of epij shmo~ v with both genitive modifiers and ejn plus dative adjuncts has revealed some surprising results - surprising, that is, from the perspective of the scholarly consensus. Repeatedly in biblical Greek, patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic texts, our working hypothesis was borne out. The genitive personal modifier was consistently used for an inclusive idea, while the (ejn plus) dative personal adjunct was almost never so used. Yet to read the literature, one would get a decidedly different picture. To say that ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostovloi~ ‘can only mean “noteworthy among the apostles” ’ is simply not true. It would be more accurate to say that ‘ejpivshmoi ejn toi`~ ajpostoloi~ v almost certainly means “well known to the apostles”.’ Thus Junia, along with Andronicus, is recognized by Paul as well known to the apostles, not as an outstanding member of the apostolic band."
yeah, their article is noted in the NET. I have read it. However, what the ESV and NET blatantly ignore is the whole host of articles and even books that refute Burer and Wallace’s claims, grammatically and historically. Burer and Wallace (B&W) make some claims that are novel and cannot be sustained when you look beyond their selective evidence. In other words, the reason grammarians before B&W hadn't proposed what they propose in 2001 is because their position cannot be sustained. Here is what Belleville wrote in a response article: "Although Burer and Wallace argue for an exclusive rendering of ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘well-known to the apostles’), all patristic commentators attest to an inclusive understanding (‘prominent among the apostles’). The simple fact is that if native, educated speakers of Greek understood the phrase to be inclusive and Ἰουνίαν [Junia] to be feminine, the burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise. Indeed, the burden of proof has not been met. Not even reasonable doubt has been established, for all the extra-biblical parallels adduced support an inclusive understanding. The sole basis is a theological and functional predisposition against the naming of a woman among the first-century cadre of apostles. Much work has been done by socio-historians in the last two decades that shows the wide-ranging roles of women in first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. First-century Greco-Roman inscriptions, papyri, and statuary show that women under Roman law enjoyed far more freedoms and privileges than has tra- ditionally been supposed. These privileges ranged from equal ownership and dis- posal of property, the right to terminate a marriage, and sue for child support and custody, to make a will, hold office (both political and religious), swear an oath, and give testimony." (Ἰουνίαν ... ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials NTS 51 [2005] 231-249). And more articles and books have come out after Bellville confirming the flaws of B&W's arguments. It's unfortunate that the NET and ESV accepted their proposal, as it doesn't actually stand up to scholarly scrutiny. Moreover, it is even more unfortunate that the NET incorporates it into their notes, as their notes claim to be rigorous scholarly support, but in the case of Rom 16:7, it is sadly very selective scholarship that merely confirms their choice and ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts their choice.
@@biblegeekPhDExcept it does stand the scrutiny.
Michael Burer published his answer to these critiques, backed by further research, where he demonstrates:
(1) The argument and evidence from our original article withstands critique. (2) Seventy-one new texts demonstrate that Paul could have readily used … the genitive [rather than the dative] to show that Andronicus and Junia were “notable among the apostles.” (3) Thirty-six new texts, all but one of which parallel Rom 16:7 exactly in grammatical structure, provide further evidence that Paul intended … to mean that Andronicus and Junia were “well known to the apostles.” (Michael Burer, ἘΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ ἘΝ ΤΟΙΣ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΙΣ In Rom 16:7 As “Well Known To The Apostles”: Further Defense And New Evidence. JETS 58 (2015).
Yeah, I have also read that article. It also doesn’t stand up to critique. The article I cite in my “can women lead churches” video is another response from 2020. The fact of the matter is, Wallace and Burer are in the minority here. Their proposal is unique and they are using grammar to justify a reading that native Greek speakers wouldn’t even accept. Not to mention that no one had ever considered this for 2000 years. You’re welcome to accept their conclusions, but there is an overwhelming body of evidence stacked against them.
Just found the channel, and for it being a small one (for now) the production value is up there with the rest of them that are well-established. I subscribed and encourage you to keep up the good work. Excited to see what's ahead. (Also, great verse, Rom 16:7, to start things with in the video. I absolutely agree with you even if most denominations would skin me alive for it.)
Thank you so much for watching and for your kind words of encouragement and for subscribing. I am really enjoying making these videos, and I have many more videos planned. :)
I find it hard to understand. I wish he put more comparative visual aids.
Feel free to look at the resources in the video description. Many of the suggested resources will go into more detail. Thanks for watching and commenting :)
The first few chapters of Epps are very helpful in this.
If you read the note on Gen.3:16 in the ESV Study Bible, you would understand that they are explicitly highlighting the conflict between man and women that rose as result of the fall. Clearly not an attempt to change God's word in favor of men. Concerning all your other comments: ESV appears to be very consistent with KJV, and NKJV (at least), while it seems that you are trying to make a point in favor of NRSV 🙂
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for this video! What is the other cases mentioned? (Thinking about the 1 other time they translated en tois as "to" an not "among"? Thanks! (and if you posted this somewhere and I missed it, my apologies)
Check out 2 Cor 2:15 and then 4:3. Thanks for watching :)
The ESV Interlear Looks like the cleanest interlinear that I have seen. This question is regarding that. Do the original words show first before their completey theological changed translation? Words original "among" and in complete translation "known to"?
Hi, thanks for your question! I am not sure I am understanding the question. Could your rephrase it.
I don’t have the ESV interlinear so if your asking if the ESV interlinear has “among” or “known to” I wouldn’t know.
(though I imagine it is a nice looking and feeling book because Crossway knows how to make Bible that are nice)
@@biblegeekPhD That was my question and thank you!
The ESV is hardly unique in its handling of these verses.
Romans 16.1 reads "servant" in the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, CSB, NET, CEB, MEV, and LSB (cf. TEV "who serves"). You can write most of those translations off as "conservative," but not the CEB.
Romans 16.7 describes Junia as "known to the apostles" (or with similar wording) in the CEV, CSB, NET, NASB 2020, and LSB. Beyond that, Andronicus and Junia are referred to as "men" in the KJV, NKJV, NJB, and MEV. The variant Junias is used in the ASV, RSV, and NASB 1995; it is noted in the margin of the TEV, NRSV, and NLT.
1 Timothy 3.11 reads "wives" in the KJV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, CSB, NET, and MEV.
Genesis 3.16 in the ESV 2016 follows the interpretation offered by scholar Susan Foh, whose work has also influenced the translation of this verse in the NLT and NET.
Susan Foh’s article is very dated and has numerous flaws. I imagine you have seen it cited in the NET. It is unfortunate because it’s not good scholarship. Maybe in the future I will make a video on the verse and dive deeper into the Hebrew. There is a much better article from 2011 that was published in the JBL, one the the best academic Bible journals, that is much better.
Thanks for watching.
@@biblegeekPhD I've actually read Foh's article. I strongly disagree with its conclusions based on the parallel passage in Song 7.10, but it's not fair to dismiss an article from the Westminster Theological Journal out of hand simply because it isn't produced by the SBL.
I have also read the article. I actually considered going to Westminster at one point, even visited campus, so I am not adverse to Westminster. Foh’s argument is limited in scope and makes sweeping conclusions about the language with a very small data set. Meanwhile, the JBL article actually studies the same word with a much larger data set. If you want to read that article, I can get you the info when I get back to my computer.
@@biblegeekPhD I assume you're talking about the article "Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תשןקה."
While I don't agree with the decision to follow Foh in translating Genesis 3.16, it's worth noting that no major translation has followed Lohr thus far, unless you count translations of the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate as "following Lohr," as his whole argument is based on an ancient Greek gloss and the other ancient versions that mimicked it.
The CSB, RNJB, NASB 2020, LSB, and NRSVue all postdate the article, but they completely ignore it, even in the margin. So too the 2015 edition of the NLT and (obviously) the 2016 edition of the ESV.
Admittedly, there is the also-ran ISV that agrees with Lohr: "I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.” Time will tell if others eventually follow. (After all, it took Foh a long time to make it to the margin of the 1996 NLT, and it was even longer before the NET put it in the main text.)
Yeah, scholarship influencing the translations of Bibles is very very slow.
The “original” documents do not exist. All we have are copies of copies, anytime someone tells you “in the original” text it says this or that, they are deceiving you.
When scholars refer to the “original” they are referring, not to the original written author’s text, but the what scholars believe is the original based on modern textual criticism.
Correct, we don’t have the original documents. That said, when it comes to the NT, a majority of scholars recognize that we know what the original author’s text said, the variants in the MSS make up less than 5% of the text. And, many of them are minor spelling differences, word order changes (which don’t matter much in Greek), and so on. And, the NT documents are the best attested ancient documents from the ancient world. We have thousands of manuscripts, hundreds in the first thousand years of church history. So, when people come saying all we have is copies of copies, what they overlook is other ancient texts like Homer or Seneca or whateve have very few ancient manuscripts. So, yes, we have copies of copies, but that’s actually very unique. Most other ancient text are not very well attested.
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD
The ESV bible was produced using the corrupt Wescott and Hort New Testament. They purposely created a new greek testament to replace the Textus Receptus, relying on just two manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These disagree with each other and with the untold thousands of Ancient Greek manuscripts that we have today. One was “discovered” in the late 1400’s in the Vatican library and the other was found in a rubbish bin at a Roman Catholic monastery in 1844. Do you actually believe that the Word of God was hidden for over 1400 years and that the Roman Catholic “church” was in possession of the only two reliable manuscripts?
So, whoever told you this, was wrong. The ESV is not based on Wescott and Hort Greek New Testament. Crossways explains on their website that it is based on "the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland" (www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-esv-translation/#:~:text=The%20ESV%20is%20based%20on,%2C%202012)%2C%20edited%20by%20Nestle). These Greek New Testaments are, the Greek text I spoke of in the pervious comment, based modern textual criticism. They look at the thousands of Greek manuscripts, and choose the reading that is most likely the original. And they actually disagree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus all over the place, because they utilize all the manuscripts at their disposal.
Now, Crossway did come out with their own GNT based on Wescott and Hort, and that is available on their website, but that is not what they used for the ESV, as it came out after the ESV's most recent update. That said, even that text disagrees in places with the manuscripts you mentioned, as they also use a criteria for determining which variant to choose. And, that project began as an update to Wescott and Hort, and became something different. All can be read in their introduction to the Tyndale GNT.
@@biblegeekPhD And what did Nestle use as a basis for their New Testament. And the United Bible Society, it’s been corrupted since the beginning of the 20th century. Why do they need to keep updating and correcting their versions? Textual criticism? Improving the grammar is one thing, eliminating verses and or words is at the core of so called textual criticism.
@FAODayTripper as I said in my previous comments the UBS uses all the texts at their disposal: manuscripts, early church fathers, early translations. You realize that these texts agree with the TR more than they disagree, right? And, the TR is essentially the Byzantine tradition, which is relied on and appealed to all the time in critical GNTs. It takes a lot of evidence for scholars to change an agreed upon reading. They are constantly updating and changing things because more manuscripts are found, new insights on those texts are made, and arguments about the choices made change minds and opinions, and so on. Humans are not perfect, and even the best make mistakes, and thus new versions are needed.
And the core of textual criticism is not "eliminating verses and words" it's finding the original text and understanding how these texts have been transmitted and copied throughout the centuries.
Despite what many people say, text criticism is done by many faithful scholars.
I love how you compare the ESV to the NRSV, a Bible that deliberately obscured the meaning of the original.
I do not compare the ESV to the NRSV. The NRSV is used in this video as a reference translation for those who don’t know the original languages. I chose to use the NRSV because both the NRSV and ESV are updates to the RSV.
All my comments are based on the ESV not accurately representing the Greek or Hebrew.
It was well known that the New International Version Inclusive Language Edition was going to be published in 1995 in England. This really got the complementarians going in the U.S. They searched for an existing bible that would allow them to revise the text. Their intention from the onset was to push their complementarian agenga in the text. So, the RSV was revised and the result was the ESV.
Indeed! Thanks for commenting and watching :)
The nrsv has many problems, though. I use tbe nkj.
This video is not an endorsement of the NRSV, nor does it claim the NRSV is without problems. In fact, I acknowledge that no translation is perfect.
They nail the Genesis 3:16 translation. I can't recall which update they made that change in. They also give the alternate translation in a note. The NET Translation notes can help you out.
There is a reason very few English translation are like the ESV, it’s a poor choice.
The ESV made the change in 2016, after the NET presented their translation.
I am aware of the NET note, and it is significantly flawed. To the average reader, the note looks like a scholarly vetted choice. To a Bible scholar, it’s a bunch of red flags. The NET cites an article from the 70’s that is dated, not an academic peer reviewed journal, and the article is significantly flawed. Meanwhile the NET and ESV ignore the recent work on Gen 3:16 in the JBL (a world renown academic journal) that contradicts the article from the 70’s, and their translation. Essentially the NET presents a one sided argument that looks like rigorous scholarship, but it is actually ignoring biblical scholarship.
I plan to make a video in this in the future, so if you are interested, subscribe to be notified when that comes out. But it will be likely next summer, as I need to finish my PhD dissertation first.
I appreciate your other translation objections. Every translation has bias and the ESV is without exception. But it's interesting that you can speak so definitively about a translation decision that is highly debated and is not settled in all of the scholarship, as you suggest in Genesis 3:16. I was simply pointing out that your argument is not compelling. The extra little "scholar" resume in your response doesn't make your argument better. If you make a video on the topic, my point is to come up with a better argument. Your current one is weak. When the ESV includes an alternate translation in a note, you should note that as well. It's a debated issue for a reason. You should not speak so definitively when the word is used three times, and personally, the connection to Genesis 4 is more compelling than a sexual reference. @@biblegeekPhD
Only thing this video confirmed is that the liberal Woke crowd doesn't approve of the ESV translation of the Bible, which makes me love my ESV even more.
The ESV version is entirely consistent with cultural norms of the time in both the Roman and Jewish communities, and also the Apostle Paul's own words claiming that it's improper for women to even speak at church.
For those who have ears, let them hear.
@@biblegeekPhDbro, look at Gen 4:7 and have ears to hear. Is God telling Cain that sins desire is going to be desiring Cain in a good way? Well the language is identical to 3:16
There are many reasons that Gen 4:7 can simply be “desire for you.” If you look basically every translation before the NET and ESV, you will find they agree with me.
That said, I will elaborate a little.
First, in Gen 4:7 the desire is “for” you in the sense that a beast desires to eat (BDB lexicon). It is “good” for the beast but “bad” for the prey.
Second, narratives read beginning to end, not the other way around. The reading you propose is one that reads Gen 4 into Gen 3, but it should be the other way around. Gen 3 happens, the woman desires her husband, but tragically in the fallenness of sin, he rules over her. Amid this tragedy, then in chapter 4, her own child does not “rule over” sin, but instead sin consumes him, and he kills his own brother. He disobeys God, and he does not rule over sin, but his own family … just like a husband ruling over his wife, Cain rules over Abel.
The language is similar between these two passages, but chapter 3 influences 4.
This is why for centuries English Bible have translated this as a simple “for.”
@@biblegeekPhD thanks for the thoughts. Now please consider the following:
1. Actually for centuries, the reading was "to your husband" not "for your husband" (see KJV).
2. You don't always interpret ancient narrative for left to right. You sometimes interpret the unclear from the clear. This is an example. The language is IDENTICAL and in Gen 4, it's clear that the sin's "desire for (or to) Cain" is a desire to destroy, not a desire to love or connect with or something. Notice how when you refer to Gen 4, you have to change the wording to fit your interpretation, but it doesn't need to be changed.
There are plenty of examples of interpreting something from the earlier part of a story by what comes after because of the clarity.
For example, Numbers 13 and the nephilim add clarity to the strange sentence of Gen 6 ("in those days and afterward")
Theological liberalism on display. Bart Ehrman 101.
The newer NIV revision says “Junia” and my study Bible even calls out explicitly that it’s a feminine name, while also providing more details about the history of this issue. It seems to be treated very well now.
Great! Thanks for watching and commenting.
According to professor Maurice Robinson, textual critic, scholar and editor of the Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon, 15% of the NIV is non-biblical. That is a lot of addition to Holy Writ.
@@TheBinaryWolf I would love to know how Robinson came to such a precise figure. When I compare the NIV to the original languages, I don't see a bunch of stuff added. Rather, I see a translation that is trying to communicate in simple English, and sometimes the Bible isn't simple, so they miss the mark. That said, I think it is an overstatement to say they have added 15% to the text. I don't even know how one would come to such a figure, because translation isn't a quantitative kind of thing. Translation isn't math, translation is interpretation.
As a fellow bible translation nerd, what I’ve discovered over the years is that every translation (even the NRSV as your contrast) have their own deck that they play with. These days, I don’t mind when a translation picks a side, but I want to know why. As long as the argument isn’t pure theological bias-it often isn’t believe it or not- I’m cool with it. This is why I love the NET notes, even though I don’t love how the translation reads, it’s great to get extensive footnotes that go into these topics. The LSB is slowly releasing translator notes as well which is nice.
With that in mind, I do want to point out just a couple of things:
1.) The ESV didn’t update Gen. 3.16 to “contrary” until it’s 2016 edition. Which means the translation existed for 15 years using the traditional rendering “for”. The first translations to adopt this were the NLT and the NET, yet I don’t hear anyone giving them flak for it. Lol. There is a great discussion to be had around this change so I encourage everyone to dig into it as it serves both as a point of consistency with the usage of the word in Gen. 4:7 and the “contrary” reading is actually the affirmation of a woman’s opinion on the topic, one Susan T. Foe who wrote an article in the Westminster Theological Journal in the 1970s I believe called “The Desire of the Woman” 🤔)
2.) When it comes to Phoebe not being referred to as a “deacon”, it should be noted that the ESV also doesn’t refer to Epaphras as a deacon in Col.1:7. Both are referred as “servants” despite the Greek word being present for both. It’s understandable that a section about the role of deacons would maintain the word, but to use that as a contrast for Romans 16:1 might be a poor comparison. “Servant” is also a classical rendering as it appears in both the Geneva Bible (1599) and the KJV (1611). The ESV mentions in the preface that it wants to exist in the line of the KJV which makes sense given that a text based on the RSV which renders as “deaconess” would make this change to more closely align with the KJV instead. Seems more like a classical approach rather than a complementarian approach.
3.) Lastly, your argument about the footnotes in the ESV about junia, in my opinion, is a moot point as they’re footnotes and not in the text itself, which is a translations way of saying that what is in the text is the better option. Simply acknowledging other possibilities is just honest, especially in the case of junia/junias. There is at least a history there that should be acknowledged. So I did find it interesting that you made an entire point on a footnote when the ESV actually picked the historical reading in favor of Junia. This was something the LSB and NASB2020 corrected, thankfully, because the NASB77/95 (If I’m correct) was the only main line protestant translation that rendered Junias.
4.) I do agree with your point about adding pronouns to bend a passage (which is why the NRSV shouldn’t be used as the poster child here my friend 😉), but the ESV is not alone in rendering this as wives, (CSB, NET, NLT, KJV, NKJV) and as previously mentioned, this does more closely re-align the ESV with the KJV. “Even so must their wives be grave…” The NET has a fascinating footnote on this topic. It’s a highly contextual rendering and probably should not be used as a definitive knock against the ESV.
To conclude my soap box 😅 I appreciate your contribution to the discussion but I disagree that the ESV is overtly trying to force a complementarian view point here. Something that I can’t confidently say about the NRSV and the CEB and their bent toward the egalitarian perspective.
Thanks for your civil dialogue. I really appreciate it.
To your very last point about the ESV not pushing an agenda, you should really look into the sources in my video description, they detail it very well. There is ample evidence for this exact thing, well beyond translations. Like interviews with editors talking about liberals and gender in the Bible, editors and contributors being all men, and more.
To point 3, yes the footnotes are minor, but with the Junias footnote, it should at least say something like, some translations. Their note makes it seem like it is a manuscript difference, but it isn't, it is a translation problem. There is a whole bunch in the Epp book that unpacks this. So, their footnote is misleading and not representative of modern scholarship or the Greek texts.
To point 4, I chose the NRSV as the companion in they video because the NRSV and the ESV are both updates to the RSV, so they are related translations. That said, I think those other translations have missed the mark as well, but I wasn't talking about them so I didn't specifically address it. As I said in the video, no translation is perfect.
Point 2 is a really fair critique. I was going for maximum impact, and wanted to show how this inconcistency of translating διάκονος creates problems that limits women, and men for that matter. I decided to discuss it with 1 Tim specifically because I also wanted to talk about the addition of the pronoun, so it was a natural connection. As I said in the video, other translations have the same problem with διάκονος and its cognates, even the NRSV in places. I agree with Nijay Gupta's recent work, "Tell Her Story" that the term should be translated something like "ministry provider" or something like that. That way we avoid the modern day ecclesial office and still communicate that these people were doing ministry. Servant just doesn't cut it for what we know about the term and how it is used. You should definitely check out Gupta's work. Very well done.
Point 1, I have read the article you mentioned. It's unfortunate that people keep referring to that article, probably because of the NET note. It is outdated, one-sided, and very limited in its research. Like, it is actually surprising that article is cited in things because it is so limited in scope. There is a much more recent study published in JBL 2011 that looks into the same word, but it studies like, everything: Dead Sea scrolls, rabbinic exegesis, early church reception and more (Lohr, Joel N. 2011. “Sexual Desire?: Eve, Genesis 3:16 and תשוקה” Journal of Biblical Literature 130 (2): 227-46.). Lohr concludes very differently than Foh, and it is also in a world class peer reviewed journal, like one of the best. In fact, Lohr's article may be worth making a video on because, despite being one of the world's top journals, its conclusions don't seem to have made it into any Bibles. That said, Foh's article is not a good representation of scholarship on the word, and her conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt, especially when one actually considers the content of the article. And, although we have more access to things like the Dead Sea scrolls and such today, her article definitely should have incorporated other things to prove her point even back in the 70's, and it doesn't. So, her article is significantly lacking.
Anyway, thanks for the friendly dialogue. Peace.
@@biblegeekPhD All great notes. Thanks for the feed back. 👍🏼
My CSB does have “wives” instead of women, but puts “women” in the footnote.
It is important to note that “contrary to” in Genesis 3:16 is only in the latest update to the ESV in 2016. All ESV bibles since 2001 up to 2016 would not have this reading.
Thanks for letting me know. I just look at my older ESV, and it indeed does say “for.” That’s an unfortunate change.
Question: so what English translation would you recommend for someone who is not conversant with the original languages? NRSV?
I always tell people to look at multiple translations. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing . I made this specific video on the ESV because it is becoming one of the most popular translations, and as a translation it has a noticeable and significant bias that makes intentional changes passages that are unjustified. Moreover, I don’t talk about this in the video, but the goals of the translation were born out of those biases against women. You can see that history chronicled in the Samuel Perry article. Thanks for your questions and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD from what you said in the video, I respect the ESV even more. But, I am biased to the complimentarian view of church roles, as Adam preceded Eve and Adam is blamed for the fall throughout the New Testament, not Eve. The fall is Adam's, not Eve's, yet she initiated it. Or, is this Bible story and New Testament record on women's roles based upon a patriarchal myth?
@@studiodemichel If a doctrine or a bias is the result of a wrong translation, or worse, a deliberately wrong translation then it is worthy of zero respect and upholding it is hardly praiseworthy, especially if you proclaim to the world that "Thy word is truth" John 17:17.
May I recommend the NKJV, based on Nestle's text. I am a Bible translator and assure you no translation is fully faithful. The smoother the English, the greater the sacrifice of theology. That virtually no attention has been paid to NT Greek grammar--often communicating as much as the lexals--is a tragedy. But even if it were unnecessay to translate Holy Writ, people will still eisogete (read into) and ot exegete (draw out the Auther's intent). Indeed, if men were more objective, denominations would not exist.
If Mt.16:18,19 were correctly translated, Catholicism would not exist.
@@TheBinaryWolf How do you say Matt 16:18-19 should be translated?
You make an interesting points but I think this is one of those things that I would like to hear the other side of the opinion. What would an ESV scholar say in response.? Only then could your audience come to a more fair conclusion. I mean perhaps they translated this way because of what we know about the culture at that time. I do not know.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
A couple of these choices are noted in the NET, and that gave the ESV the gusto to change their translation in their updates, specifically the Gen 3:16 and Rom 16:7. You can read the notes on those verses in the NET to see what they reference.
If you do look at those notes, the NET “scholarly notes” on those verses are straw man arguments, and they ignore opposing views. So, they present their choice like it is vetted by scholarly articles, but those articles are one sided, sometimes lacking substantial peer review, and the leave out the responses to those articles, or newer articles that argue differently on top peer reviewed scholarly journals. All that said, the NET notes on those verses look like scholarly opinions to non scholars, but to other scholars, they are noticeably flawed.
The novel choices of the ESV and NET are new and novel because they ignore basic grammar and syntax, and the scholars who support their conclusions have been heavily critiqued. There is a reason that for centuries no one made the choices they made, it’s because it misrepresents the original language.
@@biblegeekPhD Interesting. Thanks for your response
Even the slightest change in translation can change the whole meaning of a scripture....that why God gave us a warning about it!
I am reborn again Christian and I am confused on what Bible translation I should get. I have the KJV and I was gifted the NLT but I am not sure about the NLT as it seems too thought for thought. And the KJV is too hard for me to read. Any suggestions?
nkjv may be easier for you and is close to the kjv.
If you want a good study Bible, I would recommend the SBL Study Bible (www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-Society-Biblical-Literature/dp/0062969439). It has study notes from world class Bible scholars.
ESV is word for word, and based from KJV. Try it online and see if u like it
Read ESV or NASB 1995 for more of a literal word for word translation. Use the NLT for daily reading. The thought for thought in the NLT is very accurate and respectful. Disregard this videos lmessage.
Before you open your KJV,pray and ask the Lord to open your understanding,I use the KJV, because It's my mother's Bible and It's LARGE PRINT,I also had the NKJV, but I gave it away, wanted to stick with moms Bible,I have a parallel Bible, that has KJV, NKJV,NIV,NLT, for comparison, but I like the first 3 NLT, not so much.
ESV has Rev 13:8 wrong "before" versus "from" thus supporting Calvinism
I have heard people comment that the ESV also favors Calvinism, thanks for sharing an example. And, thanks for watching.
Say what you want but I personally believe in predestination
The RSV says the same. I think if you look* at it with Calvinistic eyes you could see it that way but if you look at it as it sits within it's context it doesn't mistranslate anything.
@@rodney8075 John is the author, when John quotes Jesus prayer in John 17:24 he uses the greek preposition πρό with is no doubt "before", thus the Father loves Jesus "before" the foundation of the world. But in Rev 13:8, he uses ἀπό. ESV gets it wrong, and is misleading the reader into calvinism.
@@Jlde2024the Bible is very clear we are predestined so it's not wrong.
I don't which edition of the ESV you use but the 2011 edition uses FOR and not CONTRARY TO (or AGAINST) at Gen 3:16 & 4:7 which appear as footnotes
Yeah, the last update in 2016 or 17 or something made that change in the main text, and you can see it on their website digitally.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
Thank you, Brother. Good, solid work🌹🌹🌹🌾
Thank you for watching, commenting, and for the encouragement :)
Great video.. Qst, doesn't the Esv bible also miss out verses? I saw a video with that some years ago..
Good question, and it depends what you mean.
I think you mean that some Bibles have missing verses.
If that’s that case, most modern bibles have the verses that scholars believe are the original based on the earliest manuscripts. That said, the KJV and other Bible who follow the “majority text” tradition have verses that were added 300-500 years later. Essentially, a majority of later manuscripts have verses that have been added, usually things that clarify or expand ideas. However, just because a lot of manuscripts from 1000AD copied an expanded text, doesn’t mean it’s original. Especially, when multiple early manuscripts don’t have those verses. So, when a Bible has “missing” verses, it’s actually the opposite, Bible’s like the KJV accidentally have added verses. Those “missing verses” usually can’t be found in texts before like 400AD. Just so you’re aware, a verse isn’t removed unless scholars are certain. I should just make a video on this topic, as it’s obvious when you start looking at the manuscripts. Basically, if a verse is removed from the base text, when there are usually like 3 or 4 manuscripts that have it missing, from before the 4the century that were found in different geographical regions (meaning they aren’t just copies of each other), and usually other language translations also show it missing in like Coptic or Latin, and when all that is the case, then it’s obvious that later manuscripts added the verse, and it is removed. Anything less than overwhelming evidence usually means they just leave it in and put a footnote that says something like, “some mss are missing this.”
Cool thanks for the response. @@biblegeekPhD
I think people get so wrapped up in translating Greek and Hebrew they forget the meaning of English words.
They were known to the apostles and they were known among the apostles..... pretty much means the same thing. Among is a proposition. "Among the apostles" is a prepositional phrase. Meaning, you can move it around the sentence and it will still make sense. Like... "Among the apostles, they were known." Bottom line "among the apostles" is the prepositional phrase.
What does among even mean? According to Webster.... in company or association with. So we can rewrite that phrase then as "they were known in the company of the apostles." In no way does that imply "they" were apostles. They... amongst (older version/ synonym of among) the apostles... were known.
That's like saying "LeBron James was well known among the priests." That's not saying LeBron James was a priest... within their company/club. It's just saying...
Within that group of people... that company... the priests... knew who LeBron James is. Just like the group... the company... the apostles knew who Andronicus and Junia were.
Like "Bill Gates is well known among the video gamer crowd"..... in no way does that imply Bill Gates is a part of that video gamer crowd.
This is why I say when it comes to Bible translations people can get a little insane... and no offense, dare I say stupid when it comes to the ENGLISH language and understanding THAT language.
The problem with “known to” and “know among” is that the Greek words used do not actually mean “known to.” Moreover, those who argue for “know to” are doing so because their theology has problems with a being an apostle. So, the translation is a poor translation that misrepresents the language, and one that is for contrived theological ends.
I am a Greek professor, so I base this entire video on what the Greek words mean, not on Webster’s dictionary.
Given your last paragraph in the response above, since you are a Greek professor, are you a professor of the Greek language or a professor from Greece?
Yet, its always lost in translation. It boils down to who translates it, who edits it, who reads it & ultimately who believes it.
Dont get stuck in the weeds
@@stvargas69 I specifically teach people how to translate New Testament Greek at a seminary. So I train future pastors how to read the New Testament properly.
To you it may seem like minor weeds, but to a farmer these minor weeds can spoil a whole crop, and thus they must be addressed. In other words, these seeming minor changes in the ESV have real consequences.
If you want the Greek to imply these women were apostles, it's got to say not that they are KNOWN among the apostles but that they ARE among the apostles, or are known TO BE among the apostles.
@@stephenfennell There is actually a lot of scholarly work about this verse and Junia. And, even native Greek speakers centuries after Paul, understood that this woman was an apostle. You can see that discussion in my video 6 minutes in (th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=cZqsVRgL0g4eusH5).
So, what translation we have so far, is the best to use?
As I say at the end of the video, use multiple translations, and recognize that none are perfect.
I often reference the NRSV, NASB, KJV. I also think the NIV and NLT are useful for reading casually.
Roman 16:7 The dative case used within a context make for a reasonable translation of to. If they were known among the apostles, they were known to the apostles. TO is a reasonable rendering of the text in context here.
We need to be careful that we do not condemn translations because their rendering of the text disagrees with something that we presuppose or it does not promote something that we presuppose. I think you have done this here.
There is no perfect translation. In the parallel consideration of several formal equivalence (modified literal) translations we will clarify any shortcomings in one particular version in a particular verse. Applying the basic principle that you are applying in this video you make it impossible to trust any of the translations. That is unless you have some special training in the original language. (By that I mean beyond accidence.) The new testament quotes the Greek Septuagint and calls it the word of God. It was not perfect and they were slight changes that were made under inspiration of the New Testament writers and speakers.
Do not take the Greek language and make it a hindrance to receiving the word of God.
I had no issue with the ESV for many years. As I state in the video, no translation is perfect, and there are many great translations. That said, when you start noting their inconsistencies and odd changes, a picture emerges that reveals they had an agenda (and then if you look at the history of the origins of the translation, they also reveal they had an agenda. The ESV was born in the gender controversy with the NIV and editors openly denigrate other translations as being corrupted by feminism and gender issues, which the ESV actively is reversing, in other words, it is not surprising their choices affect the way women are representing in the text, as they were very open about it).
That said, their choice in Rom 16:7 is inconsistent with their own choices elsewhere and breaks translation norms. No one had considered that choice until 2001, and even basic Greek speakers in the centuries following did not understand the phrase in that way (There is a bunch of scholarship on this topic).
I am well aware of the LXX, and an area of my expertise as a scholar is actually Paul’s use of Scripture. And I am a Greek professor at a seminary, so my intent is not to make Greek a hindrance to receiving the word of God. Rather, I am showing that the ESV’s choices are a hindrance, as they are not accurate and they can result in harm against women.
@@biblegeekPhD I think you may be have a politically correct view of women in the church. And that has tainted your view of the passages requiring the Greek to say things that are not within the purview of the text. Even the Greek can be twisted.
And please don’t start the credentials game. I didn’t bring it up but I do not think that your credentials are near mine. So I don’t think it’s a big deal and I didn’t disrespect you with bringing out that first. A bit of an argument by appeal to authority, which is an informal fallacy .
Haha. No wait a second, the ESV (informed by the NET and the scholars they appeal to) have twisted the Greek.
No translations prior to the ESV and NET had ever translated the Greek in this way. People over a 1000 years ago understood the Greek to mean “well known among.” I am not arguing for some “politically correct” modern assertion, I am arguing for the basic understanding of the Greek that has been accepted for millennia.
Pick the KJV, you will find they agree with me on Rom 16:7. That’s a 400 year old translation. I am not arguing for some modern political correctness. Haha.
@@biblegeekPhD ipse dixit. It would be a blessing to have a direct conversation with you about this. I’m talking about women’s role. I have met this issue in Scholiastic debate years ago, almost a half century, . But I would be interested in seeing someday what you think you have found that allows for women to have a different role than we see Historically in the early church of the apostles and the anti-nisi and fathers and the apostolic fathers.
Indeed, it would be nice to chat about this face to face.
You can see more of my thoughts on this by watching my two videos on women in ministry. I focus specifically on the NT is those videos. In those videos, my “unproven statements” (ipse dixit) are demonstrated with multiple sources.
There is a third video I want to make, detailing the information in this book: Mary and Early Christian Women. (Free kindle is available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3
In that book the author actually shows numerous churches in the early church that had women doing things only ordained church leaders did: offering the sacraments, wearing clerical garb, and so on. So, there were ordained female clergy early on in church history. Some of the research in this book involves paintings in church walls that were essentially hidden from the public because it was obviously a women offering the Eucharist meal. Also, this research is funded by Catholic grants, so this research is not some anti-establishment rewriting of history. The author is studying closely the early church, which Catholics care about because they are, of course, all about church tradition and precedent.
Furthermore, in this book you can even seen how multiple African American women were in ministry in the 17 and 1800’s (www.amazon.com/African-American-Readings-Paul-Transformation/dp/0802876765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=11ZX5UU4UGNI6&keywords=african+american+readings+of+paul&qid=1707421586&sprefix=african+american+readings+%2Caps%2C113&sr=8-1 ). So there were even women in ministry in the US before the rise of women’s suffrage in the early 1900’s and feminism in the 60’s-70’s.
So, the myth that women’s roles in ministry is some modern invention concocted by feminism, or whatever else, is not actually true. Women were doing ministry in the NT era, and after that. And there is a bunch of history to back it all up that people have been overlooking and ignoring.
I grew up hearing the old KJV and I've been using the NKJV for years, but recently I've been reading the ESV and so far I like it. I'm not a theologian or anything, I just noticed that a lot of pastors are switching to it and decided to give it a try.
Yeah, many people switched the past 20 years because they did a great job marketing the Bible. Thanks for watching :)
You are wrong in that you accuse the translators of adding anti woman bias to cut women out of leadership roles they actually had. The reason you do this is you are looking at it through the lens of modern culture. Their translation simply conformed more accurately to what the culture OF THAT DAY WAS ....male domination in specific leadership roles in the church. ....and is illustrated by the apostles, the missionaries, and the elders which held those positions. The term "leader in the church" can be as generic as the term servant. Then AND today women are vital to the church . If someone is going to make a big deal about you calling the a servant vs a leader there's a big part of what the NT teaches that you seem to have missed. Take your "modern day glasses" off and see it for what the church was as it functioned in the first century world and you will see the ESV for what it is...one of the best w for w translations available.
Thank you for watching and leaving a comment. I am glad you brought up the culture of the biblical time, because it is when one understands the culture of the first century that you begin to see when and how women were in leadership. I would recommend checking out “Tell Her Story” by Nijay Gupta. It details the cultural context of the Bible and then explains how we have overlooked women in leadership I. the Bible. Gupta was also in church contexts were only men led, similar to me, and then learned about the historical context of the Bible, and realized the male dominated leadership was a modern lens we were grafting onto the text. Thanks again for watching.
The csb bible also present the same problem on Rom 16:1 and 7, Tim 3:11 and 12; and spanish versión present the same problem on Tim 3:11 and 12 only:in the line of esv is NVI; and in the other hand RV60 and Jerusalem biblia (in spanish version)
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
I'm sorry 1:00 Andronicus and Junia are NOT called Apostles. The passage in Roman's 16:7 says "They are notorious among the Apostles" which is NRSVUE and another translation CSB is "They are noteworthy in the eyes of the Apostles,"
It does NOT suggest Junia or Andronicus were an Apostle at all in any translation, nor the Greek. It is saying, "Among the Apostles, they are notoriously known." They are somehow known by the Apostles, maybe just from hearing of them or possibly spent time with them (have no idea) and the Apostles see them as very prominate in the Christian faith.
We know who the Apostles are and Junia nor Andronicus were not one of them.
So, the ESV translation is OK to suggest "to the Apostles".
Hi, there is only so much you can fit in a 10ish minute video. I am well aware that Junia was “notorious,” in fact, I kinda like that translation. Glad you mentioned it. You can seem my discussion on Junia in my other video, where I even mention she is “notorious,” which is an intentional nod to that translation option. th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=hh6HHzBle8evM2gX
So, the problem with the ESV is their translation of the prepositional phrase, it’s inconsistent and does not accurately represent the Greek. And, they are following the NET and the scholarship the NET uses, but the arguments of those scholars have been thoroughly debunked, which the NET and ESV conveniently ignore. There is a huge reason virtually no one ever translated that phrase as “well known to” before 2001 (when Wallace and Burer made their argument), and it’s because that’s not the correct way of translating that word in that context. So prior to 2001, no one was arguing that.
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
@@biblegeekPhD @biblegeek7 Just a couple questions for you. When the verse suggests Andronicus and Junia as Apostles you are suggesting like how Barnabas or others are mentioned as Apostles and not the original 12 since Apostle meaning is one sent out or one sent on a mission correct?
Do you know that Greek theologians, who have the idea that these two are Apostles, also suggest the text could have the other meaning of other Apostles know them and they are in high regard of them?
From the info I've come across I think Mike Winger lays out the arguments really well here.
th-cam.com/users/liveOALGfKujmIU
I'm actually now up in the air on the subject. Maybe they were Apostles, maybe simply highly regarded by Apostles but to me it doesn't really matter.
For me, either way it doesn't change the fact that women can or can't be Apostles cuz of course they can. Just like today we would have women Missionaries.
I'm only interested in the what the text actually says. When I've read the passage I didn't get the impression that they were Apostles, but it could be interpreted that way.
Around the 7 min point, I discuss early church theologians and I quote John chrysostom, whose name means “golden mouth” in Greek. He was a Greek orator. So, he understood Junia as an Apostle (the title), and Greek was his first language, and he was an expert in rhetoric. th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=_a-kWi7p9g4wE9O0
I am going to listen to that guys interpretation of the verse.
And, the idea that there is only 12 “apostles,” while common, ignores that Paul was also one, and they replaced Judas by drawing lots in Acts, it’s in the first couple chapters of acts, so there would be 13 “apostles” once Paul is added. And, thus, the early church did not see apostle something limited to the 12. There are other examples as well.
*Everyone is going to be terribly shocked at the Gate when they meet Jesus if they hadn't learned about the thousands of supernatural changes the AC made in every bible on Earth...*
th-cam.com/play/PLOTw4zBND_NPf66nKUONLoe2MNFLb5LQr.html
@@residuejunkie4321To say the least!
Excellent video. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for watching and your comment :)
I strongly suggest the NKJV or the Amplified 📖
you'll find errors in the kjv and nkjv about peoples ages search up for them its not that good of a bible. also the name king James just gives it that bias king vibe. so tred carefully
I have found the Amplified Bible is, unfortunately, misguided (missing the mark, confused, probably missing something). See what I did there, haha. Ok, joking aside. As someone who knows the original languages, the amplified often adds things in parentheses that are completely not in the original language. So, many times people see (this as a clarification on a word) but in reality it is pushing an idea that is not at all in the word or sometimes not even in the text. So, if you like that Bible, keep reading it, but know that the parentheses are often times theological commentary, not explaining the words in the text. Thanks for watching and commenting.
What does 1 Tim 2:11-14 say in NRSV?
I am sure you are able to google it.
@@biblegeekPhD no need, I just read it in the Bible. But all of the egalitarian points you are making that seemed to favor NRSV, just disappear when you read 1 Tim 2, you know, the chapter before 1 Tim 3
@@Superman111181 the NRSV is referenced in this video for those who don’t know English. I chose the NRSV because it is an update to the RSV, just like the ESV, and the NRSV is what is used in academic contexts.
I read the Bible in the original language, Greek and Hebrew, and don’t actually have a favorite translation.
So, the points I am making are based on the original language.
@@biblegeekPhD please forgive me. What does 1 Tim 2:11-14 say in the Greek
@@Superman111181 I have 2 whole videos that discuss women in ministry, feel free to watch those.
In those videos, I reference a book called “tell her story” I would recommend that book. The translation of those verses are not as simple as people make it out to be.
This sounds like a skillfully constructed propaganda piece. For Rom 16:7 I agree that "among" would be a better choice but "among" does not say that they ARE apostles and using "to" does not reduce them to being only popular. Read in context, the woman are regarded highly in both versions. For Rom 16:1 "servant" is used in the NKJV and NASB so maybe the NRSV is the outlier here. The NRSV is known to lean towards gender inclusiveness and maybe the ESV leans the other way but it is disingenuous to present the NRSV as the correct standard and use it to denigrate the ESV.
I used the NRSV because both the ESV and NRSV are revisions to the RSV. Feel free to look at the resources in the video description. What I have presented in this video has been noticed by many scholars. Thanks for watching.
Yep. I stopped watching this guy after less than a minute. He's just an apologist for the NRSV--which I foolishly bought and, realizing the mistake, donated it to Goodwill several months later.
@@charlesurban3230 Thanks for the minute of watch time, and the comments, both help me greatly. PS, at the end of the video I explain that no translation is perfect. There are actually numerous problems with the NRSV as well, but I compare the NRSV to the ESV because they are both revisions of the RSV.
Correct. Benjamin Franklin was known among the presidents, but that did not make him a president.
Romans 16:7 your absolutely right
Gen 3:16 right
rom 16:1 right. I am a complementarian, but I agree with you they are pushing their heavy calvinistic doctrine too.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
All of the time and study you have spent on finding this out is of Great Value, thanks.
Thanks for watching and your kind comments. :)
When i saw the title 3 problems it made me hesitant to even start reading. So please recommend me to Which Bible should i study? I only want to start once i feel this is the right one. Because i haven't read the Bibles yet.
I would recommend this Bible, the SBL Study Bible. www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-Society-Biblical-Literature/dp/0062969420/ref=asc_df_0062969420/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=693550347081&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1799144134918663961&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9014319&hvtargid=pla-2015286708377&psc=1&mcid=ca0895bf3e4c3e89bee2ea6da262e0fd
I would definitely recommend getting as many different translations as you can and start sooner than later.
But I’ll also give my opinion and suggestions as a seminary student
Every man’s study Bible NLT - great Bible they also have a women’s version but I can’t speak to that as I’ve never used it. This one focuses on how to live the life God calls men to and highlights the positives and negatives of different biblical men.
Life application NLT- focus again on practical theology and how to actually put the biblical meanings into practice.
The ESV study Bible - this one is funny to recommend on a video about problems with the ESV translation, which this just doubles down. But it’s still a good translation for 90% of the Bible and just acknowledge the Calvinist and complementation bias
CSB study Bible - from my experience this one does a much better job at being neutral and saying here’s the Text and letting you draw your own conclusions.
CSB also has a few other good study bibles, it’s my preference translation as it does a great job balancing the word for word and though for thought translations, and I own 8 different CSB study bibles (he reads truth, apologetics, life connections, life counsel, the disciples Bible, the Charles Spurgeon, and the Tony Evan’s,) I recommend all of them except for the two with the names on them
A great option would be a Thomason Chain in any translation. No bias just linked scriptures.
Your not going to go wrong with something like the NKJV Spirit filled life bible,
Notice my bibles have all been devotional in nature, if you’ve never read. The Bible you should probably start with something more devotional than academic in nature.
I would honestly look at reviews of translations and just go from there. You won’t ever find a perfect one so get a good one and build out. Maybe even download you version or go on Bible hub and read john or Lukeacts to get a feel those translations ( I always recommend you to read Luke and acts together as those are actually part one and part two off the same book)
Great content and production value. Thanks Dain!
Thanks for watching :)
So what’s a good translation what’s your opinions on the NLT
In my experience I have enjoyed the way they simplify some of the syntax and tricky vocabulary, but I haven’t used the NLT much. I always tell people to read the version that keeps them reading, and when you have a question about a passage, open up multiple translations.
They translated Genesis 3:16 poorly, the same as the ESV. I would rather read the Living Bible, the predecessor of the NLT
@@biblegeekPhD well I just purchased the esv and I have the King James Version with the apocrypha and the nlt I’m enjoying the nlt it’s keeps me reading people always have there opinions on translation only because everyone else have different IQ so sometimes there vocabulary is more greater than others
As someone who has taken Koine Greek in seminary, you are mistaken when it comes to ‘en tois’. ‘En tois’ can also mean ‘to’. Also, ‘diakonos’ literally means ‘servant’ or ‘one who waits tables’. It can be translated literally as ‘deacon’ when the text is referring to the office of deacon. At the end of the day, context is king in determining any word with multiple meanings, and the ESV has done nothing wrong in these instances. I suggest learning more Greek before you make such comments, because a little Greek is a dangerous thing.
Hi, thanks for watching and commenting. Glad you took Greek in seminary. I hope you’re able to use your Greek knowledge to dig deeper into your understanding of the Bible and God.
I am actually a Koine Greek professor at a seminary. I have been reading the Bible in Greek for over a decade. So, my comments are coming from a place of expertise, not ignorance.
While scholars can certainly debate how to translate διακονος (see my women in ministry videos for more discussion), the ESV’s translation choices, especially in regards to ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, have been criticized and debunked by many scholars. Feel free to look at the many sources I reference in my video description. These problems with the ESV are well documented.
I'll grab my popcorn while y'all flex
@@biblegeekPhD I'm Sure every translation can be Nitpicked in such a manner. The real issues is what is said about Jesus and Eternal Life. Whether someone was know among or to the Apostles in the big picture has nothing to do with Ones Salvation.
@@Keitenrenbu so, I get where your coming from. And, I actually think many debates about the Bible and translation are ridiculous. That said, the reason I made this video is because they ESV is breaking basic norms on translation to support their gender roles theology. The ESV editors were not quiet about this. One editor championed that the ESV was going to erase any hint of feminism from the translation. While someone is certainly allowed to critique feminism or believe in traditional gender roles or whatever, translators should not begin translation with a theological conclusions and then break translation norms to fit those conclusions. The reasons all this matter is two fold. 1) the ESV is actually representing the text they are claiming to represent. 2) these poor translations result in unhealthy and harmful theologies that hurt all people, women, men, and everyone else.
So, to you point about nitpicking. I agree, it often doesn’t matter is a preposition is “in/on/at” whatever, but the consistent mistranslations of the ESV are a problem worth talking about because of what they lead to and support.
@@biblegeekPhD one who serves as an intermediary in a transaction, agent, intermediary, courier
one who gets someth. done, at the behest of a superior, assistant to someone.
Two usages of διάκονος as per the BDAG Personally the term servant fits better than Deacon. Deacon implies the assembly or ekekklesia where are the former implies getting something done like lets say the women who were the first to share the Good News, before the Apostles were given the Commission. women in leadership roles in that time and culture compared to our time and culture are completely different. People should be able to see that.
Basically, your for female leadership in the church?
You should see my other videos on that topic.
That said, this critiques of the ESV are based on the ESV’s inconsistent translations choices. Had they been consistent abs accurate, not a problem, but they aren’t. They break long accepted translation norms. I have complementarian friends who have these same issues with the ESV.
@@biblegeekPhD I saw them, but I disagree with your analysis. Women having churches in their homes doesn’t indicate they are leaders of those churches. The qualifications for elders doesn’t allow for that interpretation. Deacons, I can see an argument being made for that, especially when getting into the original languages.
@@biblegeekPhD I think the mistake you made was to compare it to NRSV. I would understand if the critique was just on ESV without the comparison. The comparison diminished your argument.
@@majesticpictures5715 I was not comparing the ESV to the NRSV, I was basing my entire argument on the original languages. I am actually a greek professor at a seminary, so I train future clergy how to read and translate the Bible from the original languages.
I only put the NRSV on the screen as a reference for those who do not know the original languages, and both the NRSV and ESV are related, as they are both updates to the RSV. So, I was not comparing the two, I was simply showing an alternative translation, one of many alternatives.
ESV is correct regarding Junia. Burer and Wallace make a compelling argument based on grammar and over 100 textual examples that Andronicus and Junia were “well known to the apostles."
Thanks for the video. Romans 16:7 is interesting indeed. Is has massive range of translations, even among the KJV, CSB, NASB. Interesting that the LSB departs from the 1995 NASB by translating the dative as “outstanding to the apostles”, when the 1995 NASB translates it “among the apostles”.
Yeah, the debates on the verse have made some translations shift to the “to the apostle” idea, when that is not how it’s been translated in the past. While I haven’t dug into this, I suspect that certain translations began doing “to the apostle” after the case became too strong in favor of Junia being a woman, but that is just speculation. Note that the NASB 95 has Junias, and so Junias could be a prominent man apostle … but now that this person is a understood rightly as woman named Junia, the translation changes from “among” to “to” in the LSB. So, you can see that these problem are not limited to the ESV, unfortunately.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 That is an old edition. The more recent editions do not have the masculine form NA27 and NA28. The Nestle from 1927-1993 had the masculine form in their base text, however, before 1927 critical GNTs had the Feminine name, which is what the actual manuscripts reflect. This is all detailed thoroughly in the Epp book I cited in the video. The reality is, there is not Greek manuscript evidence for the Masculine form that was put in those critical GNTs, there were some latin manuscripts that had masculine forms, and this allowed them to hypothesize that this was a man with a contracted masculine ending. When in reality, the latin scribes made the mistake. However, there is basically no evidence for this masculine name in the NT era. This is all detailed in the Epp book. You can also read a very abridged and accesible discussion on this in Nijay Gupta's book, "Tell Her Story." But if you know Greek, Epp's book is very detailed. There is a similar chart to the one in the video of GNTs with the masculine and feminine forms. So, your Nestle is probably one before 1993. Not even Crossway's critical GNT the Tyndale GNT (came out in 2019 I think) has the masculine form.
Hi, which Bible version would you recommend that's at the same time rather on the literal end and modern in language?
I always tell people to look at multiple translations. Based on what you’re looking for, probably the NRSV. NRSV and NIV are useful because one is more technical (NRSV) and easier to read (NIV). That said, I often look at the NRSV, NIV, KJV, NASB, NET, and CEB, I even look at the ESV occasionally. Read whatever keeps you reading, and recognize that no translation is perfect and you should always compare translations to help you grasp what is being said when a passage seems odd or challenging or confusing. Thanks for your question and for watching the video. :)
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks for the answer! I'm not a native English speaker, but I am looking for a good go to translation and the number of options is overwhelming
The word "among" in English has several meanings. So, taking the ESV to task for a single ( or, at most two ) instance of failing to use it to render the Greek is somewhat misleading in itself. Nitpicking, I'd say. The RSV and NRSV may have some slight technical advantages, but in the case of the NRSV using gender inclusive language, it is clear that those translators also had an agenda. In my view, nothing reads like the ESV. I have all the other major, legitimate translations available for comparison, as well as my Greek interlinear and lexicon. I prefer to read the text without chapter and verse markings, only referring to those "intrusions" for detailed study.
@@biblegeekPhD LOL! Sure the NRSV has no agenda with it's "inclusive language." Nor does the NIV, with its interchanging of "teachings" and 'traditions" to suit its evangelical Protestant agenda.
Kinda want to get an ESV now.
Get one that was printed before 2016, and many of these issues aren’t present. Back when it was more consistent. Haha
may you please help me, what is the best study bible replicating exact words of bible. i was about to buy a smililar esv edition but stumbled across your video
If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the two I recommend are the SBL Study Bible and the Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL study Bible is newer, so I would pick that one. Thanks for watching.
No women was an apostle. To be known among the apostles simply means they knew her.
You should see my other videos. People who read and spoke Greek as the first language, in the centuries after the writing of the NT also thought Junia was an apostle. So, despite what modern readers think, even the early church understood this phrase to be talking about an apostle.
@biblegeek7 Good video, brother. The whole Junias deal was thoroughly debunked, with over 250 Greek sources still existing today are all feminine. Junias is in later manuscripts and not representative of the original text. This should show some people that different texts can be wrong.
What type of bias do we have that we don't know we have?......Unconscious bias. One needs to know it exists in order to recognize it in one's self. Indeed, there is an anti-feminine bias in some translations and many churches today.
I'm sure Junia was an awesome Apostle, and one must ask why it was put in there. There is strength in diversity.
Nice way you respond to detractors, spoken with Eph. 4:15 in mind, and great humility from what I see, that tends to be rare nowadays.
Shalom aleichem.
This just confused me even more 😭 i want to get a bible for Christmas but I dont know whats a good choice ultimately ill likely consider another in the future but whats a good start? Ive had either the ESV or KJV study bibles in my eye, from those choices whats a good start? The bibles are huge and as such have flaws but I hope that with either translation i could be guided by the holy spirit to the truth🙏
Please reccomend one to start
Thanks!
When looking for study Bibles, I recommend the SBL Study Bible, New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL is the newest and full of world class Bible scholars.
Though, if this is for someone young and new the the faith, the Zondervan NIV Study Bible is also useful.
Get the ESV, this guy in the video is making errors about the translatiom while talking about what he "thinks" are errors in the ESV.
He says the verse in Genesis does not fit the idea of male headship and yet if you read the literal context of the whole verse, I. E. Read the whole chapter you'll see that's exactly what it's talking about. It's talking about how the women will be rebellious towards her husband from and how her husband will rule over her.
We literally see this today, why do we see wives always fighting with their husbands? It's clear what the text is referring to if we just look at even real life today. Just get the ESV. This video is way off.
The version you choose is insignificant compared to the choice you've already made to read and study. God Bless.
The real issue is 1881 Westcott and Hory changing the greek text away from God's truth. Changing doctrine!
Thanks for watching.
What about the CSB version sir?
I haven’t done a deep dive into the CSB, so I can’t comment on what kind of biases it has or anything like that. I did briefly look at the scholars that contributed to its translation, and it was not a diverse committee and very few women.
Please do make a video on it in the coming days sir.
Federal headship is a doctrine of the utmost importance.
The fact you definitely seem to have an ax to grind against that doctrine says a lot about how liberal your theology is
Thanks for watching.
Which bible translation is better brother? Any suggestions?
I suggest that people read multiple. NRSV, CEB, NIV, NKJV, NASB and more. Read whatever keeps you reading the Bible, and when you study it, read multiple translations or learn the original languages and then reference multiple translations. Thanks for watching and for both of your comments. :)
It certainly is inconsistent with their translation philosophy, but the cases in Genesis and I Timothy are rather defensible. The sense of אל there is not positive. Every pronouncement of God to every character is negative in the fall narrative. I can see the sense of "for" being one of strife and disharmony. Marital strife is just as much a theme in the patriarchal narratives as marital domination, so that either or both is a possible reading. The biggest problem is not the interpretation they have but their clarifying when "for" was suitably ambiguous.
In I Tim 3, it transitions to deacons after a discussion of bishops/presbyters. The sense of the passage is the office. It begins describing appropriate behavior, then moves to declaring he must "rule his own house well." It then moves to deacons and repeats similar standards in v 8-10. It moves to "γυναῖκας likewise," and directly parallels the place of ruling the house above and pairs this with a deacon must be the "husband of one wife" μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες. With no contextual change, the sense of γυνή should be the same: wife. The only gripe I would have is that "their" is not justified, due to the absence of both pronoun and article. Readers are capable of inferring who the wives are. This is not a severe problem, though, because the meaning of the text is unchanged.
The translation problem in I Tim 3 is the NRSV, not the ESV. "Women" is simply not the sense being used in the passage, and it doesn't say "married once" γαμοῦντες ֲἄπαξ or something similar but μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες "husband of one wife." The contrast in gender was intended by the author. I don't think the NRSV's reading is not defensible. I know it's come in vogue with scholarship, but when culture shifts, that will change too. He could have said "married once" and didn't.
I would share your criticism of Rom 16, though. Deaconesses are well attested in the earliest days of the Church and only transitioned out with changing roles of baptism and deacons. "In the church" makes it quite clear it's an ecclesiastical office in at least some communities.
Marginal notes in virtually every translation are consistently bizarre and unjustifiable. This is the place where translators can push their least defensible ideas (and typically do) since it's technically not part of the text. I don't think most translations' translational footnotes are beneficial to the average reader.
The biggest fault I find with the ESV in your passages is market-speak. Overwhelmingly, people who say they have a "word for word" translation are selling beachfront property in Kansas. It's designed to sucker people who don't realize that "word for word" would be outright gibberish and isn't possible for a translation. It's fundamentally a lie.
Thanks for watching and your extensive comment. :)
Your analysis of the ESV's "bias" in 1st Timothy is SURREAL! You actually seem to be saying that the seriously warped NRSV passage is more accurate than the ESV's translation. The NRSV has rewritten the whole passage by removing any references to the deacon's wife. That's because having a wife shows that the deacon is male! And that warped NRSV translation is supposed to be better than the ESV!!! Hello Rod Serling!
This video is not a defense of the NRSV, it is a critique of the ESV’s misrepresentation of the Greek. They are adding words to 3:11 that obscure that 3:11 could be referencing women deacons, which actually makes sense in light of Rom 16:1. By adding the pronoun, the ESV makes the choice for the reader, and it falls short of the supposed “word for word” correspondence it champions.
You’re welcome to dislike the NRSV, i don’t care what translation you read, but everyone should be aware that the ESV makes these consistent poor translation choices.
@@biblegeekPhD Romans 16:1 in the KJV uses the term servant. Radical feminists hate the male headship role in God's word...but it is clearly outlined...so I would recommend people to not make false idols, which occurs when people try to change God into what they want their god to say and be. God said what He said, and He is not going to change His word to conform to our pleasures. It is us who must accept and conform. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.
Neither of them are as accurate as the KJV
@@AmericanSentinelK9ProductionsAmen!!...well put!
I picked up an ESV bible just a couple days ago. I'm no bible thumper, nor do I know biblical Hebrew or Greek, but I did notice the "contrary to" in Genesis 3:16 right away. It struck me as odd, since I had always read it as "for" in other translations. From what little I've read of it, my first impression is that the ESV is very similar to the NKJV, which I like. Just as an example, I prefer "valley of the shadow of death" in both the ESV and NKJV over "darkest valley" we find in some other translations. To me it's more poetic.
Two professors of New Testament history I respect believe that the NSRV is the most accurate version we currently have, but ultimately there isn't going to be any single translation that appeals to every person. I seriously doubt there's anyone who is going to change their theological stance on an issue based on a different translation of a preposition, or calling someone a "servant" vs a "deacon."
Though I prefer sticking as closely as possible to the most ancient sources (I don't like paraphrased versions), the best version for most people is going to whichever version motivates them to read scripture, and helps them to become more effective instruments of God's will. None of these translation differences are worth anyone getting upset over. Just my take...
I used to think that a translation wouldn’t influence a theological stance, and then I started studying Greek and Hebrew and started realizing it was more complicated. I noticed that many people be believe that women shouldn’t do ministry also use the ESV, and then I noticed that all the key passages used to support women in ministry have been obscured in he ESV. So, a translation might not change someone’s stance, but a translation can be used to legitimize and support a stance, meanwhile that translation can be misleading or incorrect. So, we should always look closely at translations and try to evaluate their aims.
That said, I agree, read a Bible you like reading. That’s the most important. Thanks for watching and commenting. Ps I like you name, peace on earth is the goal of the gospel! Peace!
@@biblegeekPhD Thanks, brother. "but a translation can be used to legitimize and support a stance." 100% true, and it seems to me to be the #1 reason most people either like or dislike a particular translation. I really have no huge religious dog in the translation hunt, as many of my views would be considered heretical by most mainstream Christians anyway.
Taking religious faith out of the equation for a minute, at the very least the bible is the world's most famous literature. And great literature should be treated with reverence. In the same way that we should want our Beowulf translations to be true to what the author was actually trying to say, we need to respect the biblical literature enough to try our best to let it say what its authors were actually trying to say without interjecting our own biases.
Paxonearth came about after our first son, Paxton, was born. Glad you noticed. I'll keep watching your channel. Take care of yourself.
As a Bible scholar, I am often considered a heretic for simply showing people what the Bible says. So you’re in good company. Welcome to being a Bible Geek. :)
And, I agree, the Bible should be read like any other book, regardless of what one believes about it. In fact, my area of expertise is literary theory and hermeneutics, so I have spent many hours researching the topic. Here is an example of one of my publications. brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p228_5.xml?language=en
Maybe one day I will package some of it into a video.
@@biblegeekPhD I hope you do. Thanks for the link.
The ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION is not my favorite. But it certainly destroys the obnoxiously gender inclusive NRSV. The ESV also tears the NIV to shreds.
Bibles that destroy and tear to shreds … those are some pretty harsh verbs for the word of God, the one who is know as a God of love.
You’re welcome to read any Bible you like, but none of the Bibles I know destroy and tear to shreds, that’s seem like something that people do with Bibles, sadly.
I hope my video helped you see some of the ways the ESV doesn’t live up to its own aims and some of its imperfections.
Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD Well, if you want to hear the positive, I would say that the 1966 Catholic Edition of the RSV is the best. It is the one BIBLE that is accepted by Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and many Protestants. Many people don't like the NRSV because of its excessive use of gender neutral language. My grudge against the NIV is that its purpose was to make a BIBLE that didn't sound Catholic or Anglican.
Then you haven't read NASB 2020. So much of what the RSV and NRSV were burned for by many are included there. Understanding changes, just like the times.
Even bible scholar Dan Wallace has problems with what the ESV wound up doing in 2016. People need to calm down and realize that every English translation has its problems. Let’s not pile on to a brother who’s just pointing out some problems he sees with a particular translation, in which other biblical scholars have pointed out the same problems, but have recommended the ESV as still a very good translation. I know that “wokeness” ( whatever that now means in definition ) has made many very paranoid that there is a hidden agenda behind everything, but this is literally a discussion that has been ongoing since the biblical scriptures were translated into English. Let’s calm down, and quit just assuming that someone automatically has a “liberal” agenda. Let’s be Christians who know what scripture has to say about witnesses and evidence when it comes to what biblical justice ( guilt or innocence ) looks like.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
Thanks for watching and commenting.
@@biblegeekPhD Welcome. Blessings.
Junia was not an apostle!!
See my longer video that discusses Junia in-depth, about 6 min in th-cam.com/video/62zxwzazYYE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=L3GsqarU-ZpInCT-
Apostle is used variously in the New Testament, not always as one of the 12 or Paul. For example, in Acts 14 Barnabas is included with Paul as an apostle, which I take in the looser sense of missionary. See also Epaphraditus Philippians chapter 2.
What would be the most accurate in your opinion?
I am going to assume you’re asking for accurate translation.
Hard question, every translation has strengths and weaknesses. And accuracy of translation is hard to quantify, and language translation isn’t math.
I always tell people, read whatever translation keeps you reading. For some that is the NRSV, NIV, NLT, or CEB. Others want a more wooden or clunky translation that follows the different kind of word order in Greek and Hebrew tree, and for that the NASB would be good. Or the KJV (but keep in mind the KJV is very old English, and is not using the best Greek manuscripts), that said the KJV is also a good translation considering it was translated 400 years ago.
If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the SBL study Bible (NRSVue), or the Oxford annotated study Bible (NRSV), would be a good options. Those Bibles choose NRSV, not necessarily because it is the best, but probably because it is the “ecumenical” translation. So, the translation is working with people from multiple denominations and faith traditions, and because those Bible’s are trying to be more academically minded, so rhetorical editors would choose the translation that fits that perspective.
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
KJV.
Concerning the word diakonos. Look at the usage in the NT. It is used all over the NT clearly meaning "servant". You have to consider the context of 1 Tim 3. Paul speaks about offices - episkopos and diakonos. The second point you make is also not correct because the juxtaposition of the "Women" in v. 11 is not "men" but deacons. So it is not question of sexes as you make it to be. Again it is correct translation.
In the time of Paul it was quite popular to push women into leadership. For example the cult of Diana (feminism is nothing new nor progressive) pushed the idea that women should rule the society. It was great problem in Corinthian church.
But clearly you have your agenda. :D
Yeah, women were in ministry long before feminism. There were multiple churches with women leaders in the NT and in the centuries following the NT. You can read all about it in:
(www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3) So, the discussion of women and ministry is not a thing that was spawned simply because of feminism. Despite what people will tell you, there were many churches ordaining women before the 1970’s. You may be interested in my videos on women in ministry and the Bible, and I go into more detail on the translation on diakonos.
Thanks for watching.
@@biblegeekPhD Yeah, but that is not what I am saying. The ancient Cult of Diana is an example that devisive spirit of contemporary feminism is nothing new nor pregresive. Rather regresive to push the society before the time of truly revolutionary christian ideas communicated in the Bible.
Yeah, I was aware of what you were saying. I don’t find women taking places of authority a threat to the church, but actually all people can be called to lead church congregations in all capacities. And, I think Paul was perfectly fine with women leaders as well. Christianity is definitely revolutionary, but if I am reading your comments correctly, I think we have different ideas on what that revolution looks like.
Thank you for this video! I have an NRSV study Bible from my university days but just ordered an ESV with a journaling margin, it hasn't arrived yet (I'm now also feeling glad I got it on sale). I will be adding notes on this subject for sure, including anywhere I find an issue with this in my NRSV (which I had planned to use to check the ESV against). But now I'm feeling also inspired to get my hands on an interlinear Bible in English, Hebrew and Greek, just for extra back-up. Anyway, will be coming back to this video for future reference. So glad you popped up in my recommended today, it was meant to be!
Glad you liked the video, and enjoy your new Bible :) thanks for watching!
And an interlinear is free on the internet. Check out Biblehub. biblehub.com/interlinear/
That said, it’s not always as simple as reading an interlinear, because those too aren’t perfect, as language isn’t always one to one word for word kind of thing. :)
You might notice that he actually did not discuss the translation of verse 12, where husband and wife are IN THE TEXT…so perhaps there is an agenda…on his part…Διάκονοι deacons g1249 ἔστωσαν Let be g1510 μιᾶς of one g1520 γυναικὸς wife g1135 ἄνδρες, the husbands g0435 τέκνων children g5043 καλῶς well g2573 προϊστάμενοι ruling g4291 καὶ and g2532 τῶν - g3588 ἰδίων their own g2398 οἴκων. houses
This video has sold me ESV. As somebody who uses NRSVCE everyday, ESV is much closer to original Greek and doesn't make translation choices based on ideology.
Thanks for watching.
Every time I see the word “behold” awkwardly placed within the text….
Behold, thanks for watching and commenting :)
Gotta say, you quoting that Ben guy really creeped me out!! The dominant patriarchy is a product of The Fall?? Did i hear that correctly?? Is the patriarchy incorrect in its place because it somehow dominates women?? Somebody please help me understand this guy!! 🙏
p.s. I just looked up B.W. and discovered he's a Wesleyan Arminian...'nuff said. I get it now...
I seriously laughed out loud at you calling Ben Witherington, “that Ben guy.” Hahaha
Next time I see him, I will have to call him “that Ben guy.” He is one of the most published NT scholars of our current moment, soooo, calling him that Ben guy is pretty hilarious.
That said, his interpretation of Gen 3 is pretty standard. You are free to disagree with him.
@@biblegeekPhD oh thanks
Woman was made from Adam's rib to be his suitable partner, not the other way around. This was before the fall.
@@AmericanSentinelK9Productions it was not Adams rib, that is a mistranslation in Gen 2:20-21 noted by many scholars. No where else in Scripture is this Hebrew term (tzela) translated "rib," it usually means "side." This is why early Rabbis argued that man and women were created by splitting the Adam (the first human) into two halves (Bereshit Rabat 8:1). This interpretation is consistent with Gen 1, where man and women were both created at the same time, and both were the image of God. There is a lot more that we could unpack here, but I will just tell you to go check out Wilda Gafney's book Womanist Midrash.
@@biblegeekPhD You are throwing out a red herring. Regardless of if she was made from Adam's rib or his side, either way, she was still made from Adam for Adam, not the other way around. Let's not overlook that.
Wow I knew about Junia but I didn’t know ESV translated ev tois consistently 100 other times! Awesome content Dain
Thanks for watching and commenting Ryan.
One of the primary rules of hermeneutics is to allow the clearest speaking verses to inform how we understand the less clear verses.
Diakonos could be translated as "deacon" or "servant." So that is not the clearest passage. However, 1 Timothy 3:12 reads, word-for-word literally, "Let deacons be men of one woman ...." It is not "spouse of one spouse." It is not even really "the husband of one wife," as the ESV says. "Men of one woman..." or "one-woman men."
Since this is the clearest passage, and it teaches that deacons must be men (of one woman), then this understanding informs the ESV translators when to use "deacon" vs. "servant" in other passages.
(Likewise, just above that passage, 1 Timothy 3:2 tells us that an elder/bishop must be "the man of one woman," and thus women may not hold that office. Again, this very clear language helps translators with word choice in other passages.)
The only way you come up with an egalitarian view of church leadership is if you ignore the clearest language, and then pick the words that suit your predispositions. Sorry, Bible Geek.
I am glad you know what hermeneutics is, that’s great! However, the clearest verse informing the less clear is not actually sound hermeneutics. How does one determine clear? What “clear” texts do you use to interpret other texts? And I could go on.
Hermeneutics is actually a specialty of mine, I have even published in hermeneutic theory. All that said, when one studies an unclear word or phrase, you do not begin with clear texts, you begin with how the author uses it elsewhere. Then you work your way outward to similar writers from that time and in similar literature.
Your representation of 1 Tim is too simplistic. The reason translators struggle and all come to different conclusions is because it is not “very clear language.” The verse prior is taking directly to women, this causes some odd tension because then the writer switches to talking about plural deacons (in the masculine). Often the masculine plural is not gender specific: “brothers” refers to all siblings in a collective, “men” refers to all people in a collective. Thus it is possible this is not specific to male deacons. And your word for word is also not accurate, it is actually “deacons, let them be of one woman men.” And this phrase actually means “married only once”
Below in [] is a lexical entry from BDAG, and it specifically notes that it can apply to a man or woman. Thus, the phrase it taking about a person being a faithful spouse, not only to men having one wife.
[μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ a husband married only once (numerous sepulchral ins celebrate the virtue of a surviving spouse by noting that he or she was married only once, thereby suggesting the virtue of extraordinary fidelity, e.g. CIL VI, 3604; 723; 12405; 14404; cp. Horace, Odes 3, 14, 4; Propertius 4, 11, 36; Valerius Maximus 4, 3, 3; and s. esp. CIL VI, 1527, 31670, 37053=ILS 8393 [text and Eng. tr.: EWistrand, The So-Called Laudatio Thuriae, ’76]; s. GWilliams, JRS 48, ’58 16-29. For the use of μία in ref. to a woman: Ael. Aristid. 46 p. 346 D.: ὑπὲρ μιᾶς γυναικός=for only one woman; μία γυνή quite freq.: Diod. S. 17, 72, 6; cp. 1, 80, 3, where the phrase γαμοῦσι μίαν simply means that the priests married only once, not that they lead a strictly moral life, a concept for which Greeks never use the expression μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ or anything like it; Hippostratus [III BC]: 568 fgm. 1 Jac.; Appian, Bell. Civ. 4, 95 §402; Ath. 33, 2 ἐφ̓ ἑνὶ γάμῳ: Ath. terms a second marriage εὐπρεπής μοιχεία veiled adultery) 1 Ti 3:2, 12.]
There is a reason the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are egalitarian, it is because when you look closely at the evidence, complementarian theology becomes unsustainable. See my videos on women in ministry for more detail.
@@biblegeekPhD To me, your scholarship, while remarkable, is not convincing enough to overthrow 2000 years of church practice, in ordaining only men. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, is probably the most astute follower that Jesus had. Her insights were remarkable, and Jesus never had to say to her, "Get behind me, Satan." And yet she was not appointed to office.
When a denomination allows women to be ordained, especially to the office of elder, it is usually the beginning of a slip into full-blown liberalism.
What you have been told about the history of the church not ordaining women is not accurate. I hear this all the time in comp circles, and I used to be in one.
Here is a link to a church history book called Mary and Early Christian Women. The kindle is free because the researcher received grants from the Catholic Church. www.amazon.com/Mary-Early-Christian-Women-Leadership-ebook/dp/B07NZT14J3
It explains that from 300-700 there is loads of evidence that women were ordained. There are numerous fresco paintings in churches all over Europe of women wearing clerical attire, offering the sacramental meal, which only priests could do, and other evidence as well. For, centuries some of these paintings were, literally, covered up and hidden because the Catholic Church didn’t want people to know women used to be ordained.
And then there is also this book, which is a bit more approachable: The Making of Biblical Womanhood. www.amazon.com/Making-Biblical-Womanhood-Subjugation-Became/dp/1587434709/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=28Q8I03QGLN2C&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.1DE5caQqGmkiGeAJaNnR4yejgLt8lsFCB01q7h8F-bLJ3R3dG8vvJPAnQAzkjRapbFWoW9PVM4Zu3H_D2RbNAeJVSZzN4pQRS4V6Fli3Gv7uZG5cF2SmcJVsRyJp2bEhHxtzRVXuElfuiax5fZzLdX3JTwFuTPUIXRE6MxJy7pAgl828UW0AsPu1rGjg2mszH98RAhuGq24YiM5J17QmvQ.3BTISnz6RpW90b8kw0gPT-FHTTCfl3P9d-FW2Kd_E0s&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Making+of+Biblical+Womanhood&qid=1728695728&sprefix=the+making+of+biblical+womanhood%2Caps%2C156&sr=8-1
Also written by a historian, and it chronicles women in the medieval church and Protestant reformation, as well as has a chapter in the NT which is very well researched, being that Barr is not an NT scholar (everything she argues there is normative NT scholarship, and well stated).
Lastly, while this books is focused on much more than women in ministry, it too discusses women in ministry in the US in African American churches. African American Readings of Paul, www.amazon.com/African-American-Readings-Paul-Transformation/dp/0802876765/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=269ICXWV6ILRP&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.soJb1hDQYYjSR2a9iF-iNrXKwXeBpp5Db39dTlCMRLXdPXMTVKwIXWVY0_7Jl-DATVnUJ3ZMgwuKZCQMAV7WL5byng_4vQMKob1c6tH0rMB7ey4vkk7TxLBbldoKxGDCbzbsIs90U8xf77lCpybcrTgucBKe7WRe5laoU7hY--2L8uJfq6iwaJqLE0Hpv3RNyhkVRdj7BlhAYkhilIsppA.q3go00pejOq12NkSLfasZh81CwolbvuWYJqdBQFMdS0&dib_tag=se&keywords=african+american+readings+of+paul&qid=1728695918&sprefix=paul+and+african+am%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1
All that said, the argument that the church didn’t ordain women for 2000 years is just factually incorrect. Many women have been ordained, and these churches were around long before “liberalism.”
I hope you decide to go read one of these books. If I had to recommend one, I would recommend the one by Barr. Thanks for watching, Grace and Peace.
Excellent! Thanks for posting.
Thanks for watching and commenting :)
They weren’t apostles. Period. There were 12 apostles (13 including Paul) for the 12 tribes of Israel (13th being Joshua).
Anyone and everyone couldn’t become Apostles
Thanks for watching and for commenting.
So are you saying that woman are allowed to hold leadership with in the church?
You should check out my videos on that topic. th-cam.com/video/WD55gncPgLo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=17MTK4I1G0CN_rI0
Thanks for bringing clarity to this troubling translation. The majority of churches I have attended use the ESV. I have also been erased and patronized as a women trying to work in these churches, so it makes sense.
Yeah, this is an unfortunate reality of many women in ministry. I am so sorry this has happened to you. Thank you for watching, and I hope you are able to find a community that supports you.
I grew up with the RSV. After reviewing your thoughts, I feel the NRSV has the most proper treatment of women. Thank you.
Thank you for your kind words and for watching. :)
I disagree on several points. Your interpretation of the translations is off. More opinion than fact.
Thanks for your opinion. :)
Interesting. This gave me new knowledge on the ESV translation! 😊 Thank you for that, fellow bro in Christ!
Also, what do you think about the NIV (more specifically the 2011 version)?
Thank you for watching and commenting. Glad you got something out of it.
The NIV is not perfect either, but its strength is that it is very readable. As I say in the video, no translation is perfect, and if you’re studying a passage, read multiple.
If you’re not studying, and just reading for enjoyment, then read whatever is easiest for you. The NLT is similarly readable.