Featured The Holman Christian Standard Version

Your English is deplorable. Rephrase.

 

You are like a dog with a bone - not prepared to let things go for the sake of peace and quite

Well, if your not going to let it lie, here goes!

The reason the gender of the priests is a red herring is because that is irrelevant to:

1) The point the author is making
2) The literal rendering of the Greek into the English

Hence in both the 'art' and 'science' of translation it is utterly irrelevant to discuss the gender of the priests.

The verse reads:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, (NKJ)

In the Greek it reads:

τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἰερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· καὶ ἔλαβον τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένου ὃν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ,

There are no textual variants for us to be concerned with in this phrase

ὃν - this is a relative pronounce (accusative singular) - who/ whom
ἐτιμήσαντο - is the verb 'to honour' the form is - aorist, middle, indicative, third person plural
ἀπὸ - Preposition - from/ of/ by/ since/ - prepositions are tricky beasts
υἱῶν - is the noun that you place so much weight on - son/child/descendant/ friend are all valid translations into English (they a share a degree of semantic overlap) - the form is genitive, plural, masculine
Ἰσραήλ, - proper noun, Israel, genitive singular masculine

The first problem with the ESV translation is the word 'some' where does that come from? There is no pronoun in the Greek text (or anything else) to substantiate it's inclusion. To my mind it is interpretive rather then literal.

So dropping the word 'some' in the ESV we have:

on whom a price had been set by the sons of Israel, (Mat 27:9 ESV)

Which brings us to the phrase:

sons of Israel, (Mat 27:9) or the children of Israel, (NKJ) - Greek υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

Now, one of the questions we have to ask about this phrase is not just what do the individual words themselves, but is it an established idiom within the writings of Matthew (and scripture)?

A quick search of both the LXX and NT reveals over 600 occurrences of this phrase (in various forms). Its first occurrence in this exact form is Gen 35:5 where it refers specifically to Jacob's (Israel's) children (next generation). The same can be said for the next two uses (Gen 46:8 & Ex 1:1), however from then on it takes on the sense of a national identifier like 'English' or 'American' in modern terms. This can be seen in place like Ex 1:9; 12; 3:9 etc.

The phrase υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ in this exact form does not find much use in the NT and this is the only place Matthew uses it however the term is, by the days of the Apostles and Gospel writers a clearly established biblical idiom that refers to the nations of Israel - the best translation is 'children of Israel' unless you wish to postulate that all through scripture this phrase can have the interpretation of 'sons of Israel' and thereby excluding the daughters?

Hence the question becomes why has the ESV translated it differently on this occasion.

To reality is the more traditional translation doesn't need to be defended - the ESVs departure from this translation needs to defended.

This brings us round to the point Matthew is making. A theme of Matthews account of the death of Jesus is the corporate nature of the Jews rejection of their messiah, see for example Matt 27:25, the priests are acting as corporate (federal heads) over the Jewish people. In much the same way as when your president declares war the whole nation is at war and you are at war regardless of your own stance on that war (that is your corporate identity) when the priests sell Jesus for 30 pieces of silver they act in a corporate fashion - they act on behalf of the whole nation.

The ESV translation is weak based on these three points then:

1) it adds words in
2) it departs from the normal understanding of a well established idiom without explanation
3) it misses the point Matthew is making

Gender inclusivity is not an issue in this verse and to try and involve this verse in that debate beyond using it as as an example where υἱός is rightly translated 'children' rather then sons/ friends etc is somewhat disingenuous.

 

Have you now read some of the Christian Feminist Manifesto?

 

No.

 

They would be denying that God has specific roles for men and women that differ in the Church, such as male leadership, so they want the scriptures to reflect that we are now doing the same roles and and have same positions in church and home!

 

Really? Well that certainly doesn't have anything to do with the NLT and NIV.

 

I have the Apologetics bible. Notes are good - good comments. The only reason I do not use it in the pulpit is it is awkward in meter and does not read well. Can not believe they are changing so soon. King James reads well as does the NKJV.

 

You should look the new RSV how it aborts all gender and in psalms even confuses the Trinitarian ideal. soon we be so confused we will not remember what biblical writers were trying so say. I am not making any comment about ministry gender, rather I worry about the obfuscation of biblical writers intentions. At this rate we will lose the gospel itself.

If this is sophomoric forgive me.

 

What is this new RSV you are referencing? If you mean the NRSV it is almost 30 years old and does nothing which you find fault with.

 

They do, as their stated goal. at least for Niv 2011 was to make translation speak "not as masculine biased"

 

yes it would!

 

Not as bad as the Queen james bible, that made the bible approve of gay relationships!

 

Show me in the Preface of the 2011NIV that this is the case. If not, then stop with your deliberate fake news.

 

You are guilty of delivering false news.

Billx said that that 'It aborts all gender [distinctions-Rip] and in Psalms even confuses the Trinitarian ideal[whatever that means]

All of which is an absurdity --an absurdity you don't mind buying into.

 

It distorts the intent God had given to us concerning male and female differences!

 

The 2011 Revision of the NIV
The Real Reason for the Revision
The explanation offered for the “updates” is also misleading in that it does not mention the real political and financial considerations that have caused the NIV committee to make three revisions within the past fifteen years. The considerations that set in motion this series of revisions are, however, indicated in a document that set forth a new “Policy on Gender-Inclusive Language” adopted by the committee in 1992. The document contains these paragraphs:

C. Authors of Biblical books, even while writing Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit, unconsciously reflected in many ways, the particular cultures in which they wrote. Hence in the manner in which they articulate the Word of God, they sometimes offend modern sensibilities. At such times, translators can and may use non-offending renderings so as not to hinder the message of the Spirit.

D. The patriarchalism (like other social patterns) of the ancient cultures in which the Biblical books were composed is pervasively reflected in forms of expression that appear, in the modern context, to deny the common human dignity of all hearers and readers. For these forms, alternative modes of expression can and may be used, though care must be taken not to distort the intent of the original text.

The same committee wrote, in the Preface to the 1996 revision published in Great Britain, that they believed “it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit” (p. vii)

These statements represent a very controversial position in the realm of translation theory, and, as such, they deserve a full discussion. But I have treated the issue thoroughly in another place, 5 and so we will move on.

It is surely no coincidence that this position was adopted by the NIV committee less than two years after the publication of the New Revised Standard Version(1990), which gender-neutralized the language of the RSV, for the same reasons. The NIV committee members were simply following the lead of the NRSV committee. But because the NIV was being used by a more conservative constituency, a strong reaction arose against the NIV revision of 1996, which led to some discussions with conservative ministry leaders in America. In order to quell the controversy, which threatened to depress sales of the New International Version, representatives of the International Bible Society (IBS) then agreed to refrain from publishing the revision, or anything like it, in America. But shortly afterwards they did publish a similar revision in America, under the name Today’s New International Version, while giving assurances that the new revision would not replace the 1984 edition. In the marketing of the TNIV, the IBS sought to minimize controversy by claiming that the revision was not really motivated by a desire to avoid offending modern sensibilities, or by any attitude contrary to “patriarchalism.” It was claimed that their purpose was nothing other than to make the meaning of the text clear. This however was widely dismissed as an evasion, because the editing process which eliminated the words “man,” “father,” “son,” “brother” “his,” etc., had obviously nothing to do with any considerations about the meaning of the original words, or with any desire to make the meaning clear. It is not even credible that such arbitrary and mechanical changes would have been done by a committee of scholars, and we may assume that it was done by style editors employed by the publisher. The TNIV did not sell very well. But it seems that IBS officials were determined to make this gender-neutralizing revision sell, because after six years of TNIV failure they announced that another revision would replace the 1984 NIV—and this turned out to be just a minor revision of the TNIV, rebranded as the NIV.

In their revision of the TNIV, it seems that the committee has now looked at the gender-neutralizing changes that were made, and it has modified many of them. We see, for example, the changes in Psalm 1.

1984 NIV

2005 TNIV

2011 NIV

Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers.

Blessed are those who do not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but who delight in the law of the LORD and meditate on his law day and night. They are like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.

Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the LORD, and who meditates on his law day and night. That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever they do prospers.

The change here was made in response to criticism of the TNIV which used this verse as an example of the loss of meaning that often happens when plurals are substituted for singulars. As I wrote in 2005, the substitution of plurals does significantly interfere with the sense here, because “the one man whose delight is in the law of the Lord is set in opposition to the many ungodly ones around him. But when the man is made to disappear into a group of genderless people, then a part of the meaning of this passage is lost.” 6 And so the revisers have made it singular again. But we also see that they still refuse to use the word “man” or any masculine pronouns, leading to the awkward substitution “that person,” and the ungrammatical use of “they” with a singular antecedent. This continues to be objectionable, because the stylistic taboo against using the word “man” forces inaccuracy and clumsiness in the translation, and it has nothing to do with making the meaning clear. It is simply a “politically correct” avoidance of masculine terms.

In June of 2011 the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) published a critique of the 2011 NIV, which describes and criticizes the gender-neutralizing alterations of the revision. The critique is carefully written, and I recommend it highly. It should be studied by those who are considering using this version. The critique rightly emphasizes the fact that the revision is designed “to water down or omit details of meaning that modern culture finds offensive.” This is the crux of the matter: the theoretical position taken by the NIV revisers, that the language of the version must be made inoffensive to the sensitivities of feminism. That is what makes the revision unacceptable to conservatives.

The “Brief Response” to this critique issued by the NIV committee does not engage or even acknowledge the central issue here. It is contemptuous and evasive. It claims that “the NIV translators have never been motivated by a concern to avoid giving offense.” But this directly contradicts their own policy statement of 1992, which explicitly states that the purpose of the revision was to eliminate renderings that “offend modern sensibilities,” and it contradicts the evidence of the version itself. Again, this is what makes the NIV revision so offensive, on theoretical grounds. It not only introduces thousands of inaccuracies, it requires us to accept a very objectionable de facto rule of translation. And to make matters worse, the revisers are not even willing to talk about the rule that led to these revisions.

 

That is an utter lie. As a professing Christian you should not say utterly false things. Shame on you.

 

The above is what I said in post 133. Do what I asked. If you can't then admit you are unable to back up your silly charges.

 

I showed you the other quote, did you bother to read it?

 

They did seem to open the door to female Apostles, and to allow women to be leaders/teacher though, correct?