What I was trying to say is that fluent English speakers *ought* to know that, specifically in passages like the one from Galatians cited above. It’s absurd to think that Paul is saying he didn’t receive the Gospel from a male human being only. He’s saying he didn’t receive it from a human being at all. In regards to the translations of 2 Timothy 2:2 and 1 Tim. 2:8, with the translation of anthropos, I think it’s likely that a term other than man/men would get at the meaning better, but I also think there are places where anthropos was used, in context to refer specifically to males. This was a huge issue in the recent Anglican-Orthodox dialogue in regards to women’s ordination. We took the position that most, if not all, references to anthropos refer to human nature, not maleness or femaleness, and I think that’s correct in most cases.

I’ve yet to find an issue that folks have with the ESV in regard to gender that is not there in the earlier RSV that it was based on. I may yet find something, but from what I can see, most folks are criticizing it for not being the NRSV, and for translating “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 as virgin rather than young woman (one of the biggest conservative critiques of the RSV), which is something that the NIV, NLT and TNIV do as well.

In the end, what people do with the scripture ought not effect how we translate it–people do all sorts of wacky things and if we were to base our opinions of scripture on that we wouldn’t even read it . I’ve heard some of them in my own (rejected) fundamentalist upbringing in the SBC. There are reasons I’m an Episcopalian after all :-p. In the end, I have to fall back on one of my favorite proverbs in regard to folk like you mention:

You cannot separate fools from their foolishness,
even though you grind them like grain with mortar and pestle. (Proverbs 27:22 NLT)

Sue,

Grudem was one editor, but I do not think the translators or editorial team were monolithic. Even JI Packer has held several positions over the past several years when it comes to women in ministry, and the jurisdiction he is now a part of (The Anglican Communion in Canada) ordains women to the priesthood.

I appreciate your comments, keep ‘em coming .

Also, I think it’s beyond argument that the texts of 1&2nd Timothy are problematic for those of us who are egalitarian and believe women can be ordained/teach etc… translating them so that they are less problematic is merely avoiding the exegetical issue.

In the KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB “man” meant people, all people, and “men” as in “people” were saved. The translation was consistent – both aner and anthropos were translated as “man/men.” But the ESV has translated aner as “man/men” always, and anthropos as “man/men” when referring to teaching or transmitting the word, and “people” elsewhere. This was done on purpose to make the translation consistent with 1 Tim. 2:12. That is what I was told.

It is a plugin called “Holy Scripturizer” and it is having some issues at the moment, I am not inserting the links manually but was trying to set-up the plugin.

Maleness is majestic and noble and we women are all given a great honour to be called “men” because we are represented by men.

Well, I don’t agree with Grudem on this. But I don’t agree with what you’re saying either. You seem to be accepting Grudem’s argument about the language–giving up the field and saying “He must be correct, man is exclusive, therefore we cannot use it and no one will be able to tell that it means all of humanity.” I’m not speaking ideologically, I’m speaking about usage and the way the English language developed and is to be read. If Grudem wants to put more weight on the words than they legitimately bear, that’s his problem. If because of it, however, one is unable to understand a simple English usage as anything other than a frontal attack on one’s personhood, then it has become a bigger problem than one man’s opinion.

I’d still be interested in an example where the ESV has specifically altered a translation from its predecessor versions in order to exclude women. As I said, every example you’ve cited seems to be translated the same way in the RSV–did the RSV translators have the same agenda, or were they just prisoners of their time? It seems to me your argument is with a whole ideology that one doesn’t necessarily have to hold in order to appreciate the ESV and which one isn’t going to contract from it any more than the KJV, RSV and possibly a number of other translations.

“Throughout the NRSV the human race is no longer called “man.” The majestic, noble name which God gave us as humans at the beginning of creation-the great and wonderful name “man”-is no longer our name in the Bible … Feminist pressure has renamed the human race. We are now to be called “humankind,” instead of the name God gave us.” 6

W. Grudem, “What’s Wrong with `Gender Neutra]’ Bible Translations?’ (paper delivered at the November 1996 ETS meeting in Jackson, Mississippi) 11.

Maleness is majestic and noble and we women are all given a great honour to be called “men” because we are represented by men. Women are only in the image of God if we reflect male headship over us. This is explicit in much of the writing of these translators.

Are men really ashamed to be called “humans” by feminists? Is the name “humankind” an insult? Is that how we are to take adam and anthropos.