Handout - Are These Arguments from the Bible?

[Resource Manager]

Are These Arguments from the Bible?

 

THE CLAIM

 

‘How much are we following Bible teaching, ecclesiastical tradition, or secular attitudes of previous centuries?’¹

 

‘It is not the “the philosophies of the modern world” which have made us ask for change. It is looking at the Bible and observing where Christadelphian practice has developed from church traditions.’²

 

‘We ask, therefore, since our stated Christadelphian belief is that we should go “Back to the Bible”, why do we follow Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions instead of following the Bible?’³

 

THE FACTS

 

Ian and Averil provide information concerning the extra-Bibilcal sources from

which they have derived their understanding of these texts, which reveals that they did not arrive at their conclusions simply by ‘looking at the Bible’.⁴ What follows is a list of conclusions proposed by Ian and Averil, together with the sources which they identify as contributing to their conclusion.

• ‘When in 1 Corinthians 14 we read a description of a first century ecclesial meeting, the same applies. Although in the masculine, it is addressed to all brothers and sisters and describes the varied activity.’⁵
  

Source: NIV 1998 Inclusive Language edition (egalitarian, gender inclusive)

• ‘Although all manuscripts contain verses 34-35, some place them after verse 40. Various reasons can be suggested for this. Did a scribe accidentally miss the words out, and then put the omitted verses below? Or did one of Paul’s critics write these remarks in the margin, and a subsequent copyist put them into the text?’⁶
  

Source: Gordon Fee, Philip Payne (egalitarians)

• ‘The letters themselves give good reason, however, to question this interpretation, and indicate an emergency response to particular problems which had arisen in Ephesus and Crete.’⁷
  

Source: Gordon Fee (egalitarian)

• ‘There are two ways the verse could be translated:
   
  “I likewise desire the women to dress modestly....” or “I likewise desire the women to pray [without quarrelling], to dress modestly....” Translators usually choose (a) but (b) is possible, and several commentators consider it preferable.’⁸
  

Source: Dibelius & Conzelmann (third party⁹), Jewish New Testament (fringe paraphrase),¹⁰ Emphatic Diaglott (third party, non-authoritative¹¹), Latin Vulgate (third party, non-authoritative¹²), Modern Greek Bible (paraphrase, in disagreement with other standard modern translations)

• ‘One suggestion is that Paul approved of sisters teaching in a private context, such as when Priscilla taught Apollos at home, but did not permit a woman to teach in public. In both the Greek and Jewish worlds the idea that women could be teachers was not generally acceptable. Pagan writers in the ancient world objected to women taking public roles in a number of areas, including teaching.’¹³
  

Source: James G Sigountos & Myron Shank (egalitarians)

 

-------

¹ ‘All One’, p. 190 (March 2009).

² ‘Reply 1’, p. 7.

³ Ibid., pp. 39-40.

⁴ Ibid., p. 40.

⁵ Ibid., p. 45.

⁶ Ibid., p. 69.

⁷ Ibid., p. 72.

⁸ Ibid., p. 81.

⁹ The term ‘third party’ here refers to a source which is neither egalitarian nor complementarian; these may usually be regarded as valuable ‘neutral’ sources; unfortunately in this case Ian and Averil chose a biased source which believed Scripture is riddled with fabrication and fiction (Dibelius and Conzelmann were skeptics with regard to the Bible).

¹⁰ David Stern’s ‘Jewish New Testament’ is the work of one man with a personal bias, and without formal training in Greek; it is not taken seriously by professional Bible translators.

¹¹ With due respect to Benjamin Wilson, his translation was his own work and suffers from his own bias; no modern scholar would consider it authoritative or worth quoting to settle an academic dispute.

¹² Late Latin translations of the earlier Greek texts are treated cautiously by modern textual scholars as such translations do not conform to modern techniques, and sometimes demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Greek; they are sometimes used to inform textual investigations, but they are not treated as reliable translations, especially in comparison to modern English translations.

¹³ Ibid., p. 86.

[Resource Manager]

• ‘There is disagreement among scholars as to the meaning of the word authentein which occurs only here in the New Testament. Suggested translations are “have authority” in a good sense, or “dominate” in a bad sense.’¹⁴
   
  ‘Other writers continue to maintain the word has a negative meaning.’¹⁵

Source: Richard & Catherine Kroeger, Ian Marshall (egalitarians)

 

• ‘TNIV (2004), the latest update of the NIV, gives: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”. In the footnotes it points out that “woman” and “man” may mean “wife” and “husband” respectively, and it also offers: “I do not permit a woman to teach a man in a domineering way” or “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise (or have) authority over a man.”’¹⁶

Source: Gender inclusive translation

 

• ‘It can be translated as “their wives” (i.e. the wives of deacons), or (more probably50) it should be translated “the women deacons”.’¹⁷
   
  
• ‘The REB translates “Women in this office”.’¹⁸
   
  
• ‘TNIV (2004) puts the footnote: “Probably women who are deacons, or possibly deacons’ wives”.’¹⁹

Source: Revised English Bible (gender inclusive), TNIV (gender inclusive)

 

• ‘'We conclude, therefore, that there are no adequate grounds for thinking that calling her “woman” indicates in itself any intention that she was to be subordinate to him or that he was intended to rule over her”.’²⁰

Source: Gilbert Bilezikian (egalitarian)

 

• ‘We rely on a large number of handwritten manuscripts in Greek to provide us with our text of the New Testament. Interestingly, it can be observed that alterations were made in the second century in such a way as to downplay the reported involvement and importance of women.’²¹

Source: Ben Witherington III (egalitarian)

 

SUMMARY

 

Despite their claim,²² it is clear that Ian and Averil’s request for change is not simply the result of looking at the Bible, but the result of consulting sources outside the Bible.²³ What Ian and Averil have actually done is to go back to what other people have said about the Bible, and specifically what people who already support the egalitarian position have said about the Bible. This is not simply looking at the Bible, and it is also a careful collection of sources biased towards one particular view.

 

(Jonathan Burke, 2010)

-------

¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 94-95.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 96.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 97; the publication date given for the TNIV is wrong, the correct date is 2005.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 100.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 100.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 100-101; the publication date given for the TNIV is wrong, the correct date is 2005.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 125.

²¹ Ibid., p. 181.

²² ‘It is not the “the philosophies of the modern world” which have made us ask for change. It is looking at the Bible and observing where Christadelphian practice has developed from church traditions.’, ‘Reply 1’, p. 7.

²³ There is nothing wrong with this in principle. It is invariably necessary to seek insight from extra-biblical sources when interpreting the Bible in detail. But when such a step is taken it should not be represented as simply looking at the Bible, or merely getting back to the Bible.

 

Handout_origin.pdf