BibleGateway.com
A A A A A
en
» Printer-friendly page » Mobile-friendly page

Perspectives in Translation

Search the Blog

Subscribe

About this Blog

Bible Gateway and The Gospel Coalition have teamed up to host a discussion of English Bible translation. We have convened a team of world-class scholars representing different versions of the English Bible who will address specific passages from the Old and New Testaments and answer questions about the translation process.

We hope that by pulling back the curtain on translation, this discussion will help readers understand their Bibles more clearly and learn to love God's Word more deeply. And we pray that careful attention to Scripture will excite readers to behold God's glory as he has revealed himself to us in our own language.

Recent Posts

Browse by Category

Blog Roll

RE: Women and Authority in 1 Tim. 2:12? Denny Burk

Posted in New Testament by Denny Burk on November 17th, 2010

Thanks for the comment, Dr. Moo. Let me respond to each of your points in turn.

First, I don’t intend “mistranslation” as an accusation. I just mean to say that the interpretation reflected in NIV 2011 tilts toward the egalitarian view. I understand that the translators wish to give a neutral rendering, but I don’t think “assume authority” achieves that.

Second, I can’t find “assume authority” in Mounce’s commentary. Mounce renders this verse with “exercise authority” (Mounce, WBC, p. 102). In his concluding paragraph on verse 12, he writes:

“Paul is prohibiting two separate events: teaching and acting in authority. . . . Paul does not want women to be in positions of authority in the church; teaching is one way in which authority is exercised in the church” (p. 130).

Third, we may have to agree to disagree about whether or not this is a neutral translation. That being said, we’ll also have to agree to disagree about the wisdom of removing the notes.

Fourth, I don’t question the translators’ intentions to “provide a translation that is faithful to the text, bowing to no particular theological agenda.” That is what we are all hoping for. My assumption is that every member of the committee has the best of intentions in this regard. Nevertheless, it is significant that in the committee’s attempt to provide a “neutral” rendering, they’ve taken a step back from the more clearly complementarian reading contained in NIV 1984. A lot of ink has been spilled since 1984 on this question, and I can understand the desire to be neutral on such a contentious question. But it is nevertheless a move away from what came before.

I want to be faithful to the text as you do. In this case, however, I think the best rendering is “exercise authority.” For me, Baldwin and Kostenberger’s studies (as well as yours) establish the point. I would just like to see that reflected in NIV 2011.

Thanks again for the interaction.

Denny Burk is associate professor of New Testament and dean of Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

This entry was posted by Denny Burk and is filed under New Testament.


Help and Contact
FAQs/Tutorials
Contact us/Feedback
Why We Advertise
Use Bible Gateway On Your Site
Advertise with Us
Go to top of page

Links
Mobile Bible Gateway
Gospel.com
Reverend Fun
Zondervan.com
The City by Zondervan

About and Legal
Statement of Faith
About Bible Gateway
Site map
Privacy policy
Site: Terms of use
Widget: Terms of use

Sponsors
Christian Persecution
Church Fundraising
Book Self Publishing
Gospel for Asia