Rightly Dividing the Word - A review of arguments used in ‘All One’

[Resource Manager]

Ian and Averil claim that Adam did not name Eve twice,⁹⁴⁹ but standard commentaries on the Hebrew by both complementarians and egalitarians agree with Sparks on this point,⁹⁵⁰ and agree with the significance of Adam naming Eve.^{951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958}

 

-------

⁹⁴⁹ ‘It is incorrect to say that Adam “names” Eve in Genesis 2:23 “as he does the animals (2:20)” before the fall. As we point out, the expressions and circumstances are very different. He does name her in 3:20, after the fall, though even then it is not reasonable to suggest that this is intended to expresses authority over her. It is a statement of fact, not a declaration of authority.’, ‘Reply 2’, p. 81 (April 2009).

 

⁹⁵⁰ The same Hebrew verb is used in Genesis 2:20 when Adam names the animals, Genesis 2:23 when he names Eve, and Genesis 3:20 when he names Eve again; it is the verb commonly used throughout the Old Testament when people are given names by their parents, or by those in authority over them.

 

⁹⁵¹ ‘Here the first man names the first woman in a similar fashion. Though they are equal in nature, that man names woman (cf. 3:20) indicates that she is expected to be subordinate to him, an important presupposition of the ensuing narrative (3:17).’, ’20-21 Like the second scene (2:18–25), this, the penultimate scene, has the man’s naming of his wife and a mention of their clothing.’, Wenham, ‘Genesis 1-15’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 1, pp. 70, 93 (2002).

 

⁹⁵² ‘Now, however, the man gives out the name: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.’, ‘The man called his wife’s name Eve: because the Hebrew for man contains the article, RSV switches back to The man. However, TEV now calls him “Adam,” since the woman is named for the first time here also.’, Reyburn & Fry, ‘A Handbook on Genesis’, UBS Handbook Series, pp. 75, 97 (1997).

 

⁹⁵³ ‘Insofar as the power of naming implies authority, the text voices the social reality of the ancient Near East. Yet the terminology used here differs from that employed in verse 20 for naming the animals. Here the man gives her a generic, not a personal, name, and that designation is understood to be derived from his own, which means he acknowledges woman to be his equal.’, ‘20. The man named his wife Previously he had given her a generic name (2:23). Now she acquires a personal one that expresses her nature and destiny positively and sympathetically.’, Sarna, ‘Genesis’, JPS Torah Commentary, pp. 23., 29 (1989).

 

⁹⁵⁴ ‘The man has already called her “woman” (2:23); why a double naming?’, Hamilton (egalitarian), The Book of Genesis: chapters 1-17’, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 206 (1990).

 

⁹⁵⁵ ‘Adam gives his wife a name, but she already has a name (2:23b)’, Coats, ‘Genesis: With an Introduction to Narrative Literature’, Forms of the Old Testament Literature, volume 1, p. 56 (1983).

 

⁹⁵⁶ ‘Fourthly, the wife is under the authority of her husband: he names her woman (23) and later Eve (3:20), just as earlier he had named the animals (19). This concept of the man’s head-ship is taken for granted elsewhere in the Bible (e.g. 1 Cor. 11:3; 1 Pet. 3:1–6).’, Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

 

⁹⁵⁷ ‘Adam earlier had named the animals, which was a demonstration of his authority over them. Here his naming of Eve suggests Adam’s position of rule, as referred to in verse 16.’, Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas, ‘IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000).

 

⁹⁵⁸ ‘The one with authority to name (2:19), in his climactic act, captures the essence of this newest creature.’, Ortlund, ‘Man and Woman’, in Alexander & Rosner, ‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ (electronic ed. 2001).

[Resource Manager]

Sparks further points out that male headship is also found in the New Testament, not just in the Old Testament:

 

‘Moreover, we have seen already that

many biblical texts either assert or imply male headship in the home and church, even in the New Testament

.’

⁹⁵⁹

 

‘So, while to say that "this is the lone New Testament reference to

Adam's

seniority", good theology requires that this text be read

in light of the many other biblical texts that highlight male authority in the home and church

.

 

Belleville

's egalitarian treatment

of this very important text from 1 Timothy

is far inferior to that offered by a cadre of complementarian scholars

, who have recently thrown their support behind a more patriarchal interpretation of the text.

 

A considerable mass of convincing exegetical, theological, and historical evidence supports this traditional reading, as is admitted even by egalitarians like William Webb

. Webb can admit this because, unlike Belleville,

he feels no compulsion to make 1 Timothy say something that it clearly does not say

.'

⁹⁶⁰

 

-------

⁹⁵⁹ Ibid., p.348.

 

⁹⁶⁰ Ibid., p. 349.

[Resource Manager]

Sparks even has some very stern words for egalitarians and the feminist movement, despite being a supporter:⁹⁶¹

 

‘Modern feminism has played an important role in curtailing the tyranny and oppression caused by sinful twists of this male authority,

but insofar as feminism wishes to remove these domestic authority structures altogether, it is surely a movement that runs out of bounds

. As some egalitarians now admit,

it may be that extreme exp

ressions of feminism have unwittingly contributed to the family crisis so prevalent in the United States

.’

⁹⁶²

 

Despite acknowledging that they have not even read Sparks’ book,⁹⁶³ Ian and Averil claim that when it comes to Genesis 1, 2 and 3, ‘The view he expresses is that of traditional church misogyny’.⁹⁶⁴ It is unwise to make sweeping generalizations of an author without having read their work. In reality, Sparks does no such thing. He is a dedicated egalitarian who agrees with Ian and Averil with regard to the participation of sisters in the ecclesia.^{965 966}

 

Far from taking his view from ‘traditional church misogyny’, Sparks draws it explicitly from Scripture.⁹⁶⁷

 

-------

⁹⁶¹ 'Egalitarians who assume that equality and authority are mutually exclusive categories have succumbed to an interpretive myopia, which cannot get beyond the oppressive examples of authority present in human society. Scripture gives us every reason to believe that authority need not be oppressive.', ibid., p. 351.

 

⁹⁶² Ibid., p. 352.

 

⁹⁶³ ‘We have not read Professor Sparks’ book’, ‘Reply 2’, p. 113 (April 2009).

 

⁹⁶⁴ Ibid., p.81 (April 2009).

 

⁹⁶⁵ '...I am prepared to accept a larger role for women in church leadership than church tradition has heretofore permitted', Sparks, ‘God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship’, p. 354 (2008).

 

⁹⁶⁶ '...the ordination of women to the ministry seems to me entirely suitable as Christian practice', ibid., p. 354.

 

⁹⁶⁷ ‘That the woman was made from man to be his helper, and that he twice names her (Gen. 2:23; 3:20), as he does the animals (2:20), suggests his priority and thus authority over here - just as 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 11:5-10 indicate.', ibid., p. 349.

[Resource Manager]

Obviously unaware of Sparks’ egalitarian position (even though I made it clear), Ian and Averil claim ‘Kenton Sparks is adopting a traditional church view of these two passages’,⁹⁶⁸ though Sparks is not doing any such thing. The fact that his view is in agreement with traditional church interpretations of these passages is irrelevant to the more important question of whether or not his view is correct. Ian and Averil instead attempt to discredit him with guilt by association.

 

Readers should ask themselves why a committed egalitarian such as Sparks agrees with complementarians on the interpretation of these passages. It certainly has nothing to do with personal bias, or what Sparks wishes the passages to say, contrary to what Ian and Averil claim.⁹⁶⁹ Why do Ian and Averil believe that Sparks, an egalitarian, wants to insert into the text a meaning which contradicts his own beliefs? Where is the evidence for their claim?

 

Sparks agrees with the consensus of complementarian and egalitarian commentators that ‘women lost ground in the post-fall economy of power’,⁹⁷⁰ referring to God’s announcement to Eve that now her husband would ‘rule over her’, a position not prescribed previously.

 

Though Adam had already been placed in a position of priority and leadership over Eve,^{971 972} now he was given a position to exercise authority over her.^{973 974 975 976}

 

-------

⁹⁶⁸ ‘Reply 2’, p.82 (April 2009).

 

⁹⁶⁹ ‘Note what Kenton Sparks says: “we can surmise that the issue was authority”, he has to “surmise” because this is the interpretation he wishes to insert into the text.’, ibid., p. 83.

 

⁹⁷⁰ Sparks, ‘God’s Word In Human Words’, p. 349 (2008).

 

⁹⁷¹ ‘In that woman was made from man to be his helper and is twice named by man (2:23; 3:20) indicates his authority over her.’, Wenham, ‘Genesis 1-15’, Word Biblical Commentary, volume 1, p. 81 (2002).

 

⁹⁷² ‘Fundamentally, the man and his mate were equals. This is indicated in the following facts: (1) she was a “helper” corresponding to him (2:18); (2) she received the creation mandate as much as he (1:28–30); (3) Adam recognized her as “bone of my bone”—as fundamentally like him; (4) she was the special handiwork of God as much as he; and (5) both the man and the woman were made in the image of God. In that first marriage, however, the man was the first among equals, i.e., he was the leader in the relationship. He was created first and therefore had a certain priority for that reason (cf. 1 Cor. 11:3, 8, 12). Adam asserted (and Eve accepted) his leadership when he gave his bride a name (2:23): “She shall be called Woman (’ishshah) because she was taken from man (’ish). A woman who chooses to marry chooses to subordinate herself in some measure to the leadership of the man of her choice. Adam was the head; Eve was the helper.’, Smith, ‘The Pentateuch’, Old Testament Survey Series, (2^nd ed.), 1993.

 

⁹⁷³ ‘Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God’s creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other.’, Hamilton (egalitarian), ‘The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17’, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, p. 202 (1990).

 

⁹⁷⁴ ‘The woman will desire to dominate in the relationship and will frustratingly lose the battle for control to which history amply testifies. Some38 have argued that in the wider context women do not act out the predicted subservient role. Both Eve and Sarah name their sons. But that is only an argument for the fact that the curse is not mechanical in its outworking and that the effects of the curse can be mitigated at various times and in various ways. This text is not telling us what should be, but what is. The subjugation of the woman is a sad effect of the Fall.’, Kissling (egalitarian), ‘Genesis’, College Press NIV Commentary, p. 204 (2004).

 

⁹⁷⁵ ‘The social aspect of the punishment was that the woman would be in subordination to her husband (cf. 1 Tim 2:14). She who sought to control her husband by leading him into temptation would now be the one controlled. Women have suffered much because sin entered the world. They have been subjected to degradation, to moral and physical slavery in many cultures. The dominion of the husband in the marriage is not harsh and unbearable where the spirit of Christ abides.’, Smith, ‘The Pentateuch’, Old Testament Survey Series, (2^nd ed.), 1993.

 

⁹⁷⁶ ‘Furthermore, instead of marriage being a relationship of mutual care, tension was often to characterize it. Your desire may be a desire for sexual intercourse or for independence, but ultimately the husband’s headship will prevail. He will rule over you may indicate harsh domination, but it may simply be reaffirming the chain of authority (God—man—woman) established at creation but reversed at the fall (1). The latter interpretation is more likely in view of the introduction to Adam’s sentence of Because you listened to your wife (17).’, Carson et al, ‘New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition’ (4^th rev. ed. 1994).

[Resource Manager]

It is wrong for Ian and Averil to characterize the interpretation of Sparks as ‘traditional church misogyny’, as if it is a product of a traditionalist (which Sparks is not), a misogynist (which Sparks is not), or someone who does not believe that women are permitted to hold the leadership positions traditionally held by men (Sparks firmly believes they are permitted). Their association of Sparks’ comments with ‘traditional church misogyny’ is an attempt to discredit him with guilt by association.

 

Ian and Averil also object that Sparks’ line of argument means that as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, God placed both them and the creation in a situation which was no longer ‘very good’, a result which Ian and Averil say is unworthy of God.⁹⁷⁷

 

Ian and Averil are certainly wrong to say Sparks’ argument means that the oppression of women by men is the deliberate intention of God. In fact not Eve’s pain and suffering, not the conflict between good and evil, not the oppression of women by men, not the unsatisfactory toil, none of these were the intention of God. But they were the direct result of the curse which God deliberately inflicted as punishment on Adam and Eve.

 

Ian and Averil claim it is wrong to read Scripture in a way which interprets God as deliberately implementing what He also declares is contrary to His will.⁹⁷⁸ This is surprising not least because they believe God, Christ, and the apostles all deliberately implemented what was contrary to God’s will for women, in order to capitulate to the social and cultural sensitivities of misogynist men.^{979 980 981 982 983}

 

-------

⁹⁷⁷ ‘If we follow Kenton Sparks’ line of argument, then the world with which God was pleased and declared to be very good (Genesis 1:31) is now by the deliberate act of God no longer “very good”. The pain and suffering, the conflict between good and evil, the oppression of women by men, the unsatisfactory toil – all these are the deliberate intention of God. Kenton Sparks‟ interpretation suggests that God has deliberately arranged that the world should not be “very good”, rather than that it is like this because of what man and woman have brought upon themselves by their disobedience and sin. This is an unworthy concept of God, as well as being a direct opposite to His intention as stated in the beginning (Genesis 1:31) and at the end: ―the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:14).

 

And

 

And ―death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away‖ (Revelation 21:4).’, ‘Reply 2’, p. 82 (April 2009).

 

⁹⁷⁸ ‘It cannot be right to read Genesis, Exodus, Isaiah or John in the sense that God deliberately implements what is elsewhere declared to be contrary to His will.’, ibid., pp. 82-83.

 

⁹⁷⁹ ‘Male leadership was often the outcome of society, and was approved by God for that time.’, ‘All One’, p. 216 (2010).

 

⁹⁸⁰ ‘In view of the above it might be expected that Jesus would have appointed at least one woman among the twelve disciples. Considering, however, the common religious and social attitudes towards women, it would be surprising if he had done so.’, ibid., p. 27.

 

⁹⁸¹ ‘Little success could have been expected if Jesus had attempted to appoint women followers in general in a preaching mission, for Jewish attitudes towards woman’s authority would have hindered his message. Although Jesus’ mission was soon to spread to the whole world, it started among the Jews, and was therefore restricted to what was possible within the Jewish environment.’, ibid., p. 27.

 

⁹⁸² ‘Since the elders would have a public profile in dealing with authorities, we would not expect a woman to be appointed among them.', ibid., p. 124.

 

⁹⁸³ 'In view of the general male leadership which existed in society in the first century, and in view of the problems in Crete which Paul was aiming to tackle, it is not surprising if the elders there were all male,', ibid., p. 128.

[Resource Manager]

William Webb

 

Egalitarian William Webb is just as frank as Sparks in his analysis of the Biblical texts which he identifies as ‘difficult’ for egalitarians:

 

‘As various problematic components surface within the biblical texts on slaves and women, one strong impression emerges:

a less-than-ultimate ethic in the treatment of slaves and women is reflected in various parts of Scripture

. But rather than avoid these texts, we need to embrace them—

even the difficult parts

.’

⁹⁸⁴

 

‘As with the slavery texts, we need honestly to acknowledge numerous “not so pretty” biblical texts that illustrate a less-than-ultimate ethic in the treatment of women.4

In these areas, better actions or dispositions toward human beings are both possible and desirable

.’

⁹⁸⁵

 

Webb believes that the Bible’s guidance on the treatment of women can be improved on:

 

‘To speak of this portrait of women as “sexist” would be anachronistic; indeed, relative to its culture the biblical treatment of women as a whole was redemptive.

Yet it does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how one might improve on the treatment of women in these examples

.’

⁹⁸⁶

 

Webb also concedes without controversy a number of issues which Ian and Averil contest. He believes the New Testament instructs women to wear head coverings in worship, and to be silent and not raise questions in the congregation:

 

‘

Head coverings on women in worship

. It is broadly conceded within the contemporary church that

Paul’s urging women to have some sort of head covering in worship

(1 Cor 11) reflects a cultural component of life in Corinth.’

⁹⁸⁷

 

‘

Silenced women

. The New Testament also instructs women

to be silent and not to raise questions within congregational gatherings

.19 Should they have any questions, they are to ask their husbands at home.

In short, women are to be silent, and the text assumes a gender perspective

: the male/husband is the repository of biblical knowledge.’

⁹⁸⁸

 

Webb notes the typical egalitarian practice of attempting to reinterpret these instructions so as to weaken them, and make them appear less offensive:

 

‘

The submission of wives to husbands

. In Paul’s “household codes” he instructs women to “submit to” their husbands (Eph 5:22; Col 3:18).

Some Christian interpreters water down the idea of submission in an attempt to make it more palatable today

.’

⁹⁸⁹

 

-------

⁹⁸⁴ Webb, ‘A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic; The Slavery Analogy’, in Pierce & Groothius (eds.), ‘Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without hierarchy’, p. 384 (2^nd ed. 2005).

 

⁹⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 385.

 

⁹⁸⁶ Ibid., p. 387.

 

⁹⁸⁷ Ibid., p. 396.

 

⁹⁸⁸ Ibid., p. 396.

 

⁹⁸⁹ Ibid., p. 397.

[Resource Manager]

Do complementarian views encourage domestic abuse?

 

The idea that ‘patriarchal’ societies and families would result in greater likelihood of domestic abuse by males seems entirely logical, and has been a standard argument of feminists and even some evangelical egalitarians.⁹⁹⁰

Repeated detailed studies of domestic violence have demonstrated that there is no connection (as claimed by various feminist and egalitarian scholars), between ‘patriarchal’ or complementarian views, and domestic violence perpetrated by males.^{991 992}

‘

Only a minority of batterers are misogynistic

(Dutton and Browning, 1988), and few are violent to non-intimate women;’

⁹⁹³

 

‘If feminist analysis is correct, we should expect greater violence directed toward women in more patriarchal cultures.

However, this prediction is not supported

. Campbell (1992) reports that "

there is not a simple linear correlation between female status and rates of wife assault

" (p. 19).’

⁹⁹⁴

 

‘But after carefully analyzing numerous studies of violence among married and cohabiting couples, psychologist Donald G. Dutton [“Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,’’ in Violence and Victims Vol. 9, No. 2 (1994): 167-82] has concluded that “

no direct relationship exists between patriarchy and wife assault’’ and that, therefore, feminists will have to find another explanation of wife abuse

. [Emphasis ours].’

⁹⁹⁵

 

‘“That men have used a patriarchal vocabulary to account for themselves

doesn't mean that patriarchy causes their violence

, any more than being patriarchs prevents them from being victimized. Studies of male batterers

have failed to confirm that these men are more conservative or sexist about marriage than nonviolent men

. To the contrary, some of the highest rates of violence

are found in the least orthodox partnerships — dating or cohabiting lovers

.”’

⁹⁹⁶

 

‘…

most of the studies that have been conducted do not support the global feminist hypothesis

. For instance, a comprehensive meta-analysis of various studies showed

that adult male batterers could not be differentiated from non-abusive men on the sole basis of traditional (patriarchal) gender attitudes

. 41 [footnote reproduced in footnote

⁹⁹⁷

below]’

⁹⁹⁸

 

‘They found that: (a)

religious involvement is correlated with reduced levels of domestic violence

; (b) levels of domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; © the effects of religious involvement on domestic violence vary by race/ethnicity; and (d)

religious involvement, specifically church attendance, protects against domestic violence

...’

⁹⁹⁹

 

‘

Some have speculated that traditionalist or patriarchal religious ideologies may legitimate, or at least fail to adequately condemn, the practice of partner violence

(e.g., Nason-Clark 1997, 2000). This may be particularly true for certain variants of conservative Protestantism that emphasize male headship;

however, to date, studies of domestic violence that have examined the role of religion have not identified any clear support for this claim

(Brinkerhoff, Grandin, & Lupri, 1992; Ellison, Bartkowski, & Anderson, 1999; Wilcox, 2004).’

¹⁰⁰⁰

 

-------

⁹⁹⁰ ‘The claim made from a feminist analytical perspective, therefore, is twofold: that society is patriarchal and that the use of violence to maintain male patriarchy is accepted.’, Dutton, ‘Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The ecological fallacy’, Violence & Victims (2.125-140), 1994.

 

⁹⁹¹ ‘If patriarchy is the main factor contributing to wife assault, then the majority of men raised in a patriarchal system should exhibit assaultiveness. However, given the four major surveys of incidence of wife assault that have been implemented to date, the vast majority of men are non- assaultive for the duration of their marriage (Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz, 1980; Schulman, 1979; Straus and Gelles, 1985; Kennedy and Dutton, 1989).’, ibid.

 

⁹⁹² ‘Also, studies of the general population do not appear to suggest that faith groups that endorse hierarchical marital structures report higher rates of IPV [inter Personal Violence] (Brinkerhoff, Gradnin, & Lupri, 1992; Cunradi, Caetano, & Shafer, 2002; Ellison & Anderson, 2001; Ellison, Bartowski, & Anderson, 1999).’, Levitt & Ware, ‘”Anything With Two Heads Is a Monster” Religious Leaders’ Perspectives on Marital Equality and Domestic Violence’, Violence Against Women (12.12.1170), 2006.

 

⁹⁹³ Dutton, ‘Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The ecological fallacy’, Violence & Victims (9.2.174), 1994.

 

⁹⁹⁴ Ibid, p. 171.

 

⁹⁹⁵ Editor, ‘Patriarchy And Abuse: No Direct Link’, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (2.2), 1996.

 

⁹⁹⁶ Pearson, quoted in Brownridge & Halli, ‘Explaining Violence Against Women in Canada’, p. 27 (2001).

 

⁹⁹⁷ ‘D. B. Sugerman and S. L. Frankel, “Patriarchal Ideology and Wife-Assault: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Journal of Family Violence 11 (1996) 13-40; see also Lisa Jeanne Battaglia, “Conservative Protestant Ideology and Wife Abuse: Reflections on the Discrepancy between Theory and Data,” Journal of Religion and Abuse 2 (2001) 31-45.’, ibid.

 

⁹⁹⁸ Tracy, ‘Patriarchy and Domestic Violence: Challenging Common Misconceptions’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (50.3.580), 2007; he also notes ‘While patriarchy may not be the overarching cause of all abuse, it is an enormously significant factor, because in traditional patriarchy males have a disproportionate share of power’ (pp. 582-583), and ‘So while patriarchy is not the sole explanation for violence against women, we would expect that male headship would be distorted by insecure, unhealthy men to justify their domination and abuse of women.’ (p. 583).

 

⁹⁹⁹ Ellison, et al, ‘Race/Ethnicity, Religious Involvement, and Domestic Violence’, Violence Against Women (13.11.1094), 2007.

 

¹⁰⁰⁰ Ibid., pp. 1095-1096.

[Resource Manager]

Van Leeuwen notes that spousal abuse among conservative Protestant husbands is strongly related to lack of involvement in their congregation, a mere nominal claim to be Christian, rather than related to complementarian views on men and women.¹⁰⁰¹

 

It is true that ‘patriarchal’, ‘hierarchialist’ or complementarian beliefs are used to justify domestic violence.^{1002 1003}

However, the evidence demonstrates strongly that complementarian husbands and fathers (what Van Leeuwen refers to as a ‘traditionalist ideology of gender relations), are the least likely to commit domestic violence, as long as they are regular church attendees and genuinely involved in their congregation.¹⁰⁰⁴

 

Summarizing the scholarly data, Van Leeuwen contradicts flatly the claim mades made by egalitarians and feminists. Complementarian views are not demonstrably related to domestic abuse.¹⁰⁰⁵

 

Even further to the contrary, Van Leeuwen points out that complementarian males (‘gender hierarchicalist’, as she calls them), often function in an egalitarian manner, even while they assume the responsibility of headship over their households.¹⁰⁰⁶

 

-------

¹⁰⁰¹ ‘However, using data from the National Survey of Families and Households (1992–1994) Wilcox also found that a little bit of conservative religion—like a little bit of knowledge—is a dangerous thing. Some of the worst fathers and husbands are men who are nominal evangelicals. “These are men who have, say, a Southern Baptist affiliation, but who rarely darken the door of a church. They have … the highest rates of domestic violence of any group in the United States. They also have high divorce rates. But evangelical and mainline Protestant men who attend church regularly are … much less likely to divorce than married men who do not attend church regularly.”61’, Van Leeuwen, ‘Opposite Sexes or Neighbouring Sexes? What Do the Social Sciences Really Tell Us?’, in Husbands & Larsen, ‘Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 190 (2007).

 

¹⁰⁰² ‘As well, studies of women who have been victimized suggest that batterers use these beliefs to support their abuse (e.g., Adelman, 2000; Giesbrecht & Sevcik, 2000; Hassouneh-Phillips, 2001; Knickmeyer, Levitt, Horne, & Bayer, 2004).', Levitt & Ware, ‘”Anything With Two Heads Is a Monster” Religious Leaders’ Perspectives on Marital Equality and Domestic Violence’, Violence Against Women (12.12.1170), 2006.

 

¹⁰⁰³ ‘Reports of IPV repeatedly describe male partners as holding an imbalance of power (e.g., Giesbrecht & Sevcik, 2000; Knickmeyer et al., 2004; Yllo, 1993), and individuals who hold traditional beliefs about gender roles have been found to blame victims more and perpetrators less when wife abuse is reported (Haj-Yahia, 1998; Hillier & Foddy, 1993), as do clergy who endorse these beliefs (Wood & McHugh, 1994). Abused women who hold more traditional beliefs about relationships have been found to be more likely to justify their abuse, remain in the relationship, and allow their partner to control them (Folingstad, Rutledge, McNeill-Hawkins, & Polek, 1992). Also, research suggests that higher rates of incest have been found in families with hierarchical marital relationships (Draucker, 1996).'’, ibid., p. 1186.

 

¹⁰⁰⁴ ‘And conservative Protestant husbands and fathers (including those who espouse, among other things, a traditionalist ideology of gender relations) are—provided they attend church regularly—the group that is actually least likely to commit domestic violence.62’, Van Leeuwen, ‘Opposite Sexes or Neighbouring Sexes? What Do the Social Sciences Really Tell Us?’, in Husbands & Larsen, ‘Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 190 (2007).

 

¹⁰⁰⁵ ‘The upshot is that we have no evidence so far that a gender-traditionalist ideology—at least of the soft patriarchal variety—is a strong predictor of domestic physical abuse.’, ibid., p. 190.

 

¹⁰⁰⁶ ‘Gender hierarchicalist males—at least those who have frequent and active church involvement—turn out, on average, to be better men than their theories: more often than not, they are functional egalitarians, and the rhetoric of male headship may actually be functioning as a covert plea for greater male responsibility and nurturant involvement on the home front.’, ibid., p. 190.

[Resource Manager]

Benefits of complementarianism

 

The following quotation is taken from a review of a work typical of attacks on the complementarian position:

 

‘Accordingly, we note how Grady routinely suggests that the “traditional” or “hierarchical”5 view

is so deeply prejudiced against women

that it actually encourages abuse and other harmful effects

. Consider the following samples:

 

“. . . the church seems powerless to protect women because its misguided theology actually

encourages abuse

” (viii). “This

pagan

, hierarchical view of marriage

ha

s

resulted in a skyrocketing divorce rate among

Bible-believing Christians, as well as a growing

problem with domestic abuse that Christian leaders

donʼt like to talk about

” (xi-xii, italics added). “This

warped view

has created a fragile foundation in many Christian homes,

leading to strife, mistrust

and, in some cases, abuse

” (10, italics added).’

¹⁰⁰⁷

 

It is certainly true that traditional ‘hierarchical’ and complementarian views of the respective roles of men and women have been used to justify unScriptural abuse, and have been taught in such a way as to encourage such abuse, just as the Biblical teaching on slaves and servants has been historically abused.

 

However, readers of Grady’s claims may be wondering what evidence there actually is for his claims that the complementarian view of women in ‘the church’ has, in and of itself, caused ‘a skyrocketing divorce rate among Bible-believing Christians, as well as a growing problem with domestic abuse’.¹⁰⁰⁸

 

Egalitarian Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen notes that authoritative male role models and an involved fathering style (which complementarians encourage), are of demonstrable value to families.

 

‘In cultures and subcultures

where fathers are absent or uninvolved in hands-on parenting

, boys tend to define themselves in opposition to their mothers and other female caretakers, a

nd to engage in misogynist, hypermasculine behaviors as a way to shore up a fragile gender identity

.46

 

And girls who are not sufficiently affirmed as persons

by available and nurturing fathers

are at risk of becoming developmentally “stuck” in a mindset that

sees their sexuality and reproductive potential as the only criteria of feminine success

.47

 

The bottom line appears to be this: children of both sexes need to grow up with stable, nurturant and a

ppropriately authoritative role models of both sexes

to help develop

a secure gender identity

. 46’

¹⁰⁰⁹

 

Interestingly, she notes that the absence of such authoritative male role models are a concern not only for boys raised in lesbian households, but also in home-schooling households where the mother is the primary point of contact for boys in the family:

 

‘This might be grounds for worrying

not only about the development of misogyny in boys raised in lesbian households, but boys in conservative Christian home-schooling households

, given that almost all such home-schooling

is done by mothers

. ’

¹⁰¹⁰

 

-------

¹⁰⁰⁷ Lister, ‘J. Lee Grady’s 25 Tough Questions About Women and the Church: A Review Article’, Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (9.1.102), 2004.

 

¹⁰⁰⁸ Ibid., p. 102.

 

¹⁰⁰⁹ Van Leeuwen, ‘Opposite Sexes or Neighbouring Sexes? What Do the Social Sciences Really Tell Us?’, in Husbands & Larsen, ‘Women, ministry and the Gospel: Exploring new paradigms’, p. 190 (2007).

 

¹⁰¹⁰ Ibid., p. 190.

[Resource Manager]

Van Leeuwen notes that studies of pre-industrial societies (with traditional pre-modern complementarian views, rather than modern egalitarian views), show that the involved and nurturing role of authoritative fathers has a demonstrably positive impact, notably reducing abuse of women, and actually contributing to their empowerment:

 

‘Scott Coltrane’s analysis of almost a hundred

preindustrial societies

(n. 42) shows that

nurturant fathering of children

also correlates strongly with

reduced abuse of women and greater empowerment and voice for women

in the cultures where

involved fathering

takes place.’

¹⁰¹⁰

 

‘University of Virginia sociologist Bradford Wilcox has shown that

conservative Protestant fathers

are more likely to report using corporal punishment than other groups, but also (in keeping with a “

soft patriarchal

” ideology)

more likely to praise and hug their children and less likely to yell at them than other groups, both churched and unaffiliated

.’

¹⁰¹¹

 

Leeuwen notes the complementarian view of the role of the man in the family has been shown to have positive life outcomes for children:

 

‘He concludes that conservative Protestant fathers’ neotraditional parenting style

seems to be closer to the authoritative style

—characterized by moderately high levels of parental control and high levels of parental supportiveness—

that has been linked to positive outcomes among children and adolescents

.’

¹⁰¹²

 

Van Leeuwen concludes that claims of abuse leveled at complementarian parenting models have been exaggerated:

 

‘In any case, the accusations about authoritarian and abusive parenting by conservative Protestants

appear overdrawn

. The findings paint a more complex portrait of conservative Protestant fathering that reveals a hybrid of strict, puritanical and progressive, child-centered approaches to child rearing—

all in keeping with the logic of “expressive traditionalism” guiding this subculture

.60’

¹⁰¹³

 

Van Leeuwen’s balanced study does not ignore the incidence of abusive behaviour in some conservatively based marriages, but demonstrates that the data does not lead to the conclusions claimed by egalitarians such as Grady.

 

-------

¹⁰¹¹ Ibid., p. 190.

 

¹⁰¹² Ibid., p. 194.

 

¹⁰¹³ Ibid., p. 194.

 

¹⁰¹⁴ Ibid., p. 194.

[Resource Manager]

On the contrary, Van Leeuwen notes that spousal abuse among conservative Protestant husbands is strongly related to lack of involvement in their congregation, a mere nominal claim to be Christian, rather than related to complementarian views on men and women.

 

‘”These are men who have, say, a Southern Baptist affiliation,

but who rarely darken the door of a church

. They have … the highest rates of domestic violence of any group in the United States. They also have high divorce rates.

 

But evangelical and mainline Protestant men who attend church regularly are …

much less likely to divorce than married men who do not attend church regularly

.”61’

¹⁰¹⁵

 

The evidence demonstrates strongly that complementarian husbands and fathers (what Van Leeuwen refers to as a ‘traditionalist ideology of gender relations), are the least likely to commit domestic violence, as long as they are regular church attendees and genuinely involved in their congregation:

 

‘And conservative Protestant husbands and fathers (including those who espouse, among other things, a traditionalist ideology of gender relations) are—provided they attend church regularly—the group that is actually least likely to commit domestic violence.62’¹⁰¹⁶

 

Summarizing the scholarly data Van Leeuwen demonstrates (contrary to the claim mades made by egalitarians such as Grady), that complementarian views are not demonstrably related to domestic abuse:

 

‘The upshot is that we have no evidence so far that a gender-traditionalist ideology—at least of the soft patriarchal variety—is a strong predictor of domestic physical abuse.’¹⁰¹⁷

 

-------

¹⁰¹⁵ Ibid., pp. 194-195.

 

¹⁰¹⁶ Ibid., p. 195.

 

¹⁰¹⁷ Ibid., p. 195.

[Resource Manager]

 

Glossary

Meaning of Terms Used1018

Biblical feminist

As for ‘egalitarian’. The terms are used synonymously in the relevant literature.

Complementarian1019

‘Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man.   Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God's image, and so are, by God's created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.’1020   ‘1. Both Adam and Eve were created in God's image, equal before God as persons and distinct in their manhood and womanhood (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18).   2. Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:12-14).   3. Adam's headship in marriage was established by God before the Fall, and was not a result of sin (Gen 2:16-18, 21-24, 3:1-13; 1 Cor 11:7-9).   4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women (Gen 3:1-7, 12, 16).   * In the home, the husband's loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife's intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.   * In the church, sin inclines men toward a worldly love of power or an abdication of spiritual responsibility, and inclines women to resist limitations on their roles or to neglect the use of their gifts in appropriate ministries.   5. The Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, manifests the equally high value and dignity which God attached to the roles of both men and women (Gen 1:26-27, 2:18; Gal 3:28). Both Old and New Testaments also affirm the principle of male headship in the family and in the covenant community (Gen 2:18; Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15).’1021   ‘7. In all of life Christ is the supreme authority and guide for men and women, so that no earthly submission-domestic, religious, or civil-ever implies a mandate to follow a human authority into sin (Dan 3:10-18; Acts 4:19-20, 5:27-29; 1 Pet 3:1-2).’1022   ‘8. In both men and women a heartfelt sense of call to ministry should never be used to set aside Biblical criteria for particular ministries (1 Tim 2:11-15, 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9). Rather, Biblical teaching should remain the authority for testing our subjective discernment of God's will.’1023

 

-------

¹⁰¹⁸ These are the meanings to be understood when these terms are used throughout this work, but it is not an attribution of any of these positions as described here either to Ian and Averil, or to myself; generally speaking Ian and Averil may be regarded as egalitarians, myself as a complementarian, but their and my respective views within each position may differ from the specific views described here (the terms are defined here because they are use to describe the position of commentators quoted in this work other than Ian and Averil).

¹⁰¹⁹ The term has been defined here using complementarian writers.

¹⁰²⁰ Ware, ‘Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry’, p. 2 (n.d.).

¹⁰²¹ The Danvers Statement (1988), Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, retrieved from http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers.

¹⁰²² Ibid..

¹⁰²³ Ibid.

 

[Resource Manager]

 

Egalitarian1024

‘The first is the “equalitarian or egalitarian” view, which holds that the image of God in men and women assures equality in essence and hence in function for men and women in the church.’1025   ‘Evangelical egalitarians would argue that there is some correlation between one’s status in the body of Christ and one’s function or role in the smaller society of the Church and consequently the larger society of the culture. 4 [original footnote reproduced in footnote1026  below]’1027   ‘Not only is there equality of being or nature between man and woman, there is also, importantly, equality of function or task - both are commanded to rule. And note: no distinction is made to give the man a superior position in this rulership.’1028   ‘Since God's spiritual gifting is gender-neutral, and since God expects His gifts to be used in the church, it follows that men and women alike are equal in their exercise of gifts in the church.’1029   ‘2. The Bible teaches that woman and man were created for full and equal partnership. The word "helper" (ezer), used to designate woman in Genesis 2:18, refers to God in most instances of Old Testament usage (e.g. 1Sam 7:12; Ps 121:1-2). Consequently the word conveys no implication whatsoever of female subordination or inferiority.'1030   ‘5. The Bible teaches that the rulership of Adam over Eve resulted from the Fall and was therefore not a part of the original created order. Genesis 3:16 is a prediction of the effects of the Fall rather than a prescription of God's ideal order.’1031   ‘8. The Bible teaches that both women and men are called to develop their spiritual gifts and to use them as stewards of the grace of God (1Peter 4:10-11). Both men and women are divinely gifted and empowered to minister to the whole Body of Christ, under His authority (Acts 1:14, 18:26, 21:9; Rom 16:1-7, 12-13, 15; Phil 4:2-3; Col 4:15; see also Mark 15:40-41, 16:1-7; Luke 8:1-3; John 20:17-18; compare also Old Testament examples: Judges 4:4-14, 5:7; 2Chron 34:22-28; Prov 31:30-31; Micah 6:4).   9. The Bible teaches that, in the New Testament economy, women as well as men exercise the prophetic, priestly and royal functions (Acts 2:17-18, 21:9; 1Cor 11:5; 1Peter 2:9-10; Rev 1:6, 5:10). Therefore, the few isolated texts that appear to restrict the full redemptive freedom of women must not be interpreted simplistically and in contradiction to the rest of Scripture, but their interpretation must take into account their relation to the broader teaching of Scripture and their total context (1Cor 11:2-16, 14:33-36; 1Tim 2:9-15).   10. The Bible defines the function of leadership as the empowerment of others for service rather than as the exercise of power over them (Matt 20:25-28, 23:8; Mark 10:42-45; John 13:13-17; Gal 5:13; 1Peter 5:2-3).’1032   ‘11. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life and that they are bound together in a relationship of mutual submission and responsibility (1Cor 7:3-5; Eph 5:21; 1Peter 3:1-7; Gen 21:12).The husband's function as "head" (kephale) is to be understood as self-giving love and service within this relationship of mutual submission (Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:19; 1Peter 3:7).   12. The Bible teaches that both mothers and fathers are to exercise leadership in the nurture, training, discipline and teaching of their children (Exod 20:12; Lev 19:3; Deut 6:6-9, 21:18-21, 27:16; Prov 1:8, 6:20; Eph 6:1-4; Col 3:20; 2Tim 1:5; see also Luke 2:51).’1033

Evangelical feminist

As for ‘egalitarian’. The terms are used synonymously in the relevant literature.

Revisionism, revisionist

‘advocacy of revision (as of a doctrine or policy or in historical analysis) — re•vi•sion•ist \-nist\ n or adj.'1034

 

-------

¹⁰²⁴ The term has been defined here using both egalitarian and complementarian writers.

 

¹⁰²⁵ Jelinek, ‘Review of The Role of Women in the Ministry Today. By H. Wayne House’, Michigan Theological Journal (1.2.184), Fall 1990.

 

¹⁰²⁶ ‘4. K. Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966); R. Scroggs,”Woman in the NT,” IDBSup 966-968; P. K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975); V. Mollenkott, Women, Men and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977); L. Scanzoni and N. Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (rev. ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1986); J. K. Howard, “Neither Male nor Female: An Examination of the Status of Women in the New Testament,” EvQ 55/1 (1983) 31-42; J. A. Grassi, The Teacher in the Primitive Church and the Teacher Today (Santa Clara: University of Santa Clara, 1973); E. S. Fiorenza, “Toward a Feminist Biblical Hermeneutic: Biblical Interpretation and Liberation Theology,” in A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics (ed. D. K. McKim; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986).’, Lowe, ‘Rethinking The Female  Status/Function Question: Jew/Gentile Relationship As Paradigm’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (34.1.59), 1991

 

¹⁰²⁷ Ibid., p. 59.

 

¹⁰²⁸ Ware, ‘Summaries of the Egalitarian and Complementarian Positions on the Role of Women in the Home and in Christian Ministry’, p. 2 (n.d.).

 

¹⁰²⁹ Ibid., p. 2.

 

¹⁰³⁰ Christians for Biblical Equality: Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality (1989), retrieved fromhttp://www.cbeinternational.org/new/about/biblical_equality.shtml

 

¹⁰³¹ Ibid.

 

¹⁰³² Ibid.

 

¹⁰³³ Ibid.

 

¹⁰³⁴ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11^th ed. 2003); readers will note that this is a non-derogatory sense of the word.

 

[Resource Manager]

 

Sources used in this work

 

In this section key sources in this work and the reasons for their use are described.

 

Bible translations

 

The following is a list of Bible translations which have been used in this work. Of the English Bible translations, only those dating from 1970 onwards have been used,¹⁰³⁵ in order to ensure that bias from traditionally minded and outdated scholarship is minimized.¹⁰³⁶

 

Translations used in this work
Translation	Translation method	Abbreviation
*Contemporary English Version (1995)	Informal dynamic equivalence	CEV
English Standard Version (2001)	Formal dynamic equivalence	ESV
*Good News Bible (1976)1037	Semi-formal dynamic equivalence	GNB/TEV
Holman Christian Study Bible (2004)	Formal dynamic equivalence	HCSB
International Standard Version (2000)1038	Semi-formal dynamic equivalence	ISV
*The Message (2002)	Paraphrase (very informal dynamic equivalence)	Message
New American Bible (1970)	Formal dynamic equivalence	NAB
New American Standard Bible (1995)1039	Semi-formal dynamic equivalence	NASB95
*New Century Version (1991)	Informal dynamic equivalence	NCV
*New English Translation (1st edition 2005)	Semi-formal dynamic equivalence	NET
New International Version (1978)	Semi-formal dynamic equivalence	NIV
*New International Reader’s Version (1998)	Informal dynamic equivalence	NIRV
*New Living Translation (1996)	Paraphrase (very informal dynamic equivalence)	NLT
*New Revised Standard Version (1989)	Formal dynamic equivalence	NRSV
*The Living Bible (1971)	Paraphrase (very informal dynamic equivalence)	TLB
*Today’s New International Version (2005)	Informal dynamic equivalence	TNIV
The Vulgate (5th century)1040	Formal equivalence	Vulgate

 

-------

¹⁰³⁵ The 1982 New King James Version has not been included because it made minimal revisions to the text and does not reflect modern textual criticism and scholarship; paraphrases have been included in order to represent a broad spectrum of views.

 

¹⁰³⁶ Translations marked with an asterisk use gender accurate, gender neutral, or gender inclusive language; readers will note that the balance of translations used is strongly in favour of such Bibles.

 

¹⁰³⁷ Also known as ‘Good News Translation’, or ‘Today’s English Version’.

 

¹⁰³⁸ New Testament only.

 

¹⁰³⁹ Revised edition known as ‘NASB95 Update’.

 

¹⁰⁴⁰ My edition is Tweedale’s ‘Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam’ (Logos Research Systems , electronic ed. 2005).

 

[Resource Manager]

The Bibles listed here are all recognized as standard modern English translations, though some of them contain renderings with marginal or no scholarly support.¹⁰⁴¹

 

These Bibles represent the full spectrum of translations from formal dynamic equivalence to full paraphrase, in order to encompass as broad a view as possible.

 

On this point I am complete agreement with Ian and Averil:

 

'Translation is not straightforward; words have different meanings according to context, and translations are influenced by the background and understanding of the translators and commentators.

It is important, therefore, never to rely on just one translation or on one commentator

.'

¹⁰⁴²

Lexicons & dictionaries

 

Reference to a concordance, Bible dictionary, or lexicon is a standard method of determining word meaning. On this subject readers should note the importance of the following modern professional lexicons, as lexical tools used commonly in our community (such as Thayer’s, Strong’s, Young’s, and Vine’s), are little respected by modern scholarship, and are considered inadequate for serious study and commentary on contested word meanings.

 

A number of professional scholarly Greek lexicons and dictionaries have been used in this work.¹⁰⁴³ Differing in scope, depth, and presentation, they nevertheless represent the lexical scholarly consensus.¹⁰⁴⁴ These are the standard professional Greek lexicons recognized and used in the scholarly literature.¹⁰⁴⁵ Their agreement on the meaning of a given word is considered effectively conclusive.

 

-------

¹⁰⁴¹ Typically the paraphrases: Message, NLT, and TLB.

 

¹⁰⁴² ‘All One’, p. iv (2010).

 

¹⁰⁴³ ‘Thayer’s ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti Translated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, corrected edition’ (1886), has also been quoted but is not listed here as it is not a professional scholarly lexicon (in fact it was rendered out of date by new lexical discoveries less than 10 years after it was printed), and because it is not used in this work to define any particular words nor appealed to as a legitimate authority.

 

¹⁰⁴⁴ The scholarly consensus is the general collective agreement of professionals in a given field, but it is not synonymous with ‘unanimity’; it refers to a view which has consistently been examined and is agreed on as accurate by the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals in the field (views outside the scholarly consensus are always minority views, and are almost invariably dismissed by professionals as suspect at best, unworthy of notice at worst).

 

¹⁰⁴⁵ Standard works are highly regarded sources typically representing the scholarly consensus; their conclusions are not to be accepted completely without question, but are highly reliable (a comparison of standard works on a given subject renders a balanced view).

[Resource Manager]

 

Modern Professional Lexicons
Abbreviation	Lexicon1046
ANLEX	Friberg, Friberg, & Miller. (2000). Analytical lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Baker Books. This student lexicon provides the reflex forms of the Greek alongside a simplified analysis of meanings.
BDAG	Arndt, Danker, & Bauer. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press. This standard technical lexicon includes extensive references to extra-Biblical usage.
GELS1047	Lust, Eynikel, & Hauspie. (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. (electronic rev. ed.). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society). This standard technical lexicon is the principal lexicon for the LXX.
Lampe	Lampe, Geoffrey. (1961-1968). A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Clarendon Press. This standard technical lexicon has a focus on the Greek Fathers.
Louw/Nida	Louw & Nida. (1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains. (2nd ed.). United Bible Societies. This lexicon is aimed at translators working in the field.
LSJ9	Liddell, Scott, & Jones. (1996). A Greek-English Lexicon. (electronic ed., 9th rev. ed. with supplement.) This standard technical lexicon mainly indexes words appearing in the non-Biblical Greek literature, between approximately 600 BCE and 600 CE. The focus is on classical and attic forms.

 

 

Modern Professional Lexicons
Abbreviation	Lexicon
Newman	Newman. (1993). Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), United Bible Societies.
Swanson	Swanson. (2001). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains:  Greek (New Testament. (2nd ed.). Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Zodhiates	Zodhiates. (2000). The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers.
Modern Professional Dictionaries
Abbreviation	Lexicon
EDNT	Balz & Schneider. (1990-c1993). Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament. Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testamen. T&T Clark. Shorter reference dictionary which attempts to update TDNT and serve as a supplement.
Spicq	Spicq. (1994). Ernst. (trans.). (ed.). Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Hendrickson. A popular theological dictionary aimed at clergy rather than scholars.
TDNT	Kittel, Bromiley, & Friedrich. (1964-c1976). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. (electronic ed.). Wm. B. Eerdmans. This is the main dictionary cited in scholarship.

 

 

-------

¹⁰⁴⁶ Descriptions by brother Andrew Perry.

¹⁰⁴⁷ This lexicon only indexes words appearing in the LXX.

 

[Resource Manager]

 

Scholarly & non-scholarly journals

 

A number of scholarly journals¹⁰⁴⁸ and non-scholarly journals¹⁰⁴⁹ have been used in this work. While some are generally conservative in their tone,¹⁰⁵⁰ the majority of them contain articles from a broad range of viewpoints, including submissions from egalitarian and complementarian commentators, as well as unaligned third parties. These journals survey the full spectrum of views, and the scholarly consensus.

 

Scholarly Biblical journals

American Theological Inquiry, 2008 (ISSN 1942-2709)

Ashland Theological Journal, 1991-2005 (ISSN 1044-6494)

*The Bible and Critical Theory, 2004-2009 (ISSN 1832-3391)

Bible and Spade, 1972-2000 (ISSN 1079-6959)

*The Bible Translator. Technical Papers, 1950-2008 (ISSN 0260-0935)

Biblical Archaeology Review, 1975-2005 (ISSN 0098-9444)

*Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934-2007 (ISSN 0006-1921)

*Bulletin for Biblical Research, 1991-2008 (ISSN 1065-223X)

Common Ground Journal, 2003-2009 (ISSN 1547-9129)

*Critical Review of Books in Religion, 1988-1997 (ISSN 0894-8860)

*Currents in Biblical Research, April 2003-October 2010

Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 1996-2005 (ISSN 1094-8473)

*Expository Times, August 1999-October 2010 (ISSN 1745-5308; Internet edition)

Emmaus Journal, 1991-2004 (ISSN 1546-6973)

Faith and Mission, 1983-2004 (ISSN 0740-0659)

Grace Theological Journal, 1980-1991 (ISSN 0198-666X)

*Journal for Christian Theological Research, 1996-2007 (ISSN 1087-1624)

*Journal for the Renewal of Religion and Theology, 2006-2009 (ISSN 1834-3627)

*Journal for the Study of the New Testament, April 1999-September 2010 (ISSN 0142-064X)

*Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, December 2001-September 2010 (ISSN 0309-0892)

*Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, April 1999-September 2010 (ISSN 1745-5286)

*Journal of Biblical Studies, 2001-2006 (ISSN 1534-3057)

*Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 1996-2007 (ISSN 1203-1542)

Journal of Late Antique Religion and Culture, 2007-2008 (ISSN 1754-517X)

*Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, 2007-2009 (ISSN 1177-2484)

Journal of Ministry and Theology, 1997-2007 (ISSN 1092-9525)

*Journal of Philosophy & Scripture, 2003-2008 (ISSN 1555-5100)

*Journal of Religion and Society, 1999-2009 (ISSN 1522-5658)

*Lectio Difficilior, 2000-2008 (ISSN 1661-3317)

Marburg Journal of Religion, 1996-2009 (ISSN 1612-2941)

McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, 1997-2009 (ISSN 1481-0794)

Reformation and Revival, 1992-2004 (ISSN 1071-7277)

Review and Expositor, 1962-2007 (ISSN 0034-6373)

Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, 1999-2008 (no ISSN)

*The Saint Anselm Journal, 2003-2008 (ISSN 1545-3367)

*Semeia Studies, 1974-2002 (ISSN 1567-200X)

*Society of Christian Ethics Journal, 1975-2009 (ISSN 1540-7942)

Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1997-2007 (ISSN 1520-7307)

*T C: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1996-2009 (ISSN 1089-7747)

*Trinity Journal, 1980-2006 (ISSN 0360-3032)

Westminster Theological Journal, 1950-2007 (ISSN 0043-4388)

Other Biblical journals

Biblical Archaeologist, 1938-1988 (no ISSN)

Central Bible Quarterly, 1966-1979 (ISSN 0008-9311)

Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 1995-2003 (no ISSN)

Christian Apologetics Journal, 1998-2000, 2005 (ISSN 1930-9074)

Christian History Magazine, 1982-2008 (ISSN 0891-9666)

Conservative Theological Journal, 2000-2004 (no ISSN)

Global Journal of Classical Theology, September 1998-August 2001 (ISSN 1521-6055)

Grace Journal, 1960-1973 (no ISSN)

Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1995-2010 (no ISSN)

Journal of Biblical Apologetics, 2000-2003 (ISSN 1938-6397)

Journal of Christian Apologetics, 1997-1998 (no ISSN)

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1966-2007 (no ISSN)

Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 1998-2007 (no ISSN)

Master's Seminary Journal, 1990-2007 (ISSN 1066-3959)

American Theological Inquiry, 2008 (ISSN 1942-2709)

Michigan Theological Journal, 1990-1994 (no ISSN)

Reformed Baptist Theological Review, 2004-2005 (no ISSN)

Tyndale Bulletin, 1956-2006 (no ISSN)

 

-------

¹⁰⁴⁸ Identified as academic/scholarly by Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, the authoritative serials catalogue; these journals meet the academic standard for use in professional works; non-scholarly journals are still of value, as although they do not have formal scholarly status they include many articles from well recognized scholars and professional academics belonging to a broad range of disciplines.

 

¹⁰⁴⁹ Identified as non-academic/scholarly by Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, or else not registered in  Ulrich’s.

 

¹⁰⁵⁰ For example, the ‘Conservative Theological Journal’, ‘Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’, and ‘Southern Baptist Journal of Theology’; JBMW in particular is written specifically to defend the complementarian perspective.

 

[Resource Manager]

Standard works

 

A number of standard works have been used. Standard works are highly regarded sources typically representing the scholarly consensus. A knowledge of the standard works in a field is of considerable importance in order to assess sources used for research in that field. The unwary, uninformed, or undiscerning reader can be misled into treating works or authors as authoritative, when in fact they may be biased, inaccurate, or rejected by the scholarly consensus.

 

‘One should guard against some rather particularistic views, that is,

views held only by one or two scholars

. Often such views present

the eccentricities

of scholars rather than

serious contributions to the interpretation of a text

.’

¹⁰⁵¹

 

Early Christian writings

 

• Migne. (1856-1866). Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Imprimerie Catholique.

 

A standard Greek text of the early Christian writers, produced by the 19^th century French Catholic Jacques-Paul Migne. Still cited in the scholarly literature, especially since it contains various texts which have not yet been translated into English.

 

• Lightfoot & Harmer (eds.). (1898). The Apostolic Fathers: Revised Texts with Short Introductions and English Translations. Macmillan & Co.
   
  
• Lake (trans.) & Gould (ed.). (1912). The Apostolic Fathers, with an English Translation. Harvard University Press.
   
  
• Holmes (ed.). (1999). The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker.

 

These are the three standard collections and translations of the earliest Christian writings. The Holmes edition is a revision of the edition by Lightfoot and Harmer, and is frequently cited in scholarly literature. These are still recommended to students of early Christian literature in academic subject guides.

 

• Roberts, Donaldson & Coxe (eds.). (1885). The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Christian Literature Company. (electronic ed. 1997)
   
  
• Schaff & Wace (eds.). (1885). A Select Library Of Nicene And Post Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church. Second Series. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. (electronic ed. 1997)

 

These are the standard collections and translations of the early Christian writings from the 1^st to the 8^th centuries. Although somewhat dated in places, they remain the collection most commonly cited in the scholarly literature, and are still recommended in academic subject guides.[/size]

 

• De Ferrari (ed.). (1947-). Fathers of the Church – A New Translation. Catholic University of America Press.

 

A more recent collection and translation of early Christian writings from the 1^st to the 8^th centuries. Increasingly found cited in scholarly literature, and also recommended to students of early Christian literature in academic subject guides.

 

-------

¹⁰⁵¹ Arichea, ‘Taking Theology Seriously in the Translation Task’, p. 316, in Barrick, ‘The Integration Of OT Theology With Bible Translation’, The Master's Seminary Journal (12.1.26), The Master's Seminary (2001).

[Resource Manager]

Greek source texts

 

• Dittenbeger, Wilhelm. (3^rd ed., 1915-1920). Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. S. Hirzelium.

 

This is a large collection of Greek inscriptions, and is a standard source for scholarly literature on a range of subjects including lexicography, palaeography, and historical studies. It is commonly cited as ‘SIG’, followed by the volume number and inscription number.

 

• Thesaurus Linguae Graece. CDROM E. (2000). University of California.

 

This is a collection of Greek texts from the 8^th century BCE to 1453. TLG is the largest electronic collection of Greek texts, and it is used by scholars in many different fields to identify word meanings and patterns of grammatical usage in Greek.

 

My edition is the collection published in 2000 (the last CDROM published), which has since been surpassed by the online collection¹⁰⁵² (containing twice as many texts as CDROM E), but which is still used as a scholarly reference source.

 

-------

¹⁰⁵² Details of the collection may be found at the project’s website: http://www.tlg.uci.edu.

[Resource Manager]

Jewish religious writings

• Freedman & Simon (trans., eds.). (1983). The Soncino Midrash Rabbah. Soncino Press.
  

This is the standard English edition of early to late medieval Jewish commentaries on various books of the Bible.

• Neusner, Jacob. (ed.). (1988). The Mishnah: A New Translation. Yale University Press.
  

This is the standard English edition of the Mishnah (a collection of law and tradition in rabbinic Judaism), as referred to in the relevant scholarly literature.

• Epstein, Isidore. (ed.). (1990 ed.). The Soncino Talmud. Soncino Press.
  

This is a standard English edition of Talmud Babylon (also known as ‘Talmud Bavli’), the most influential and extensive collection of the Mishnah (see previous entry), and the Babylonian Gemara (rabbinical commentaries on the Mishnah). It has recently been superceded by the modern edition of Neusner.¹⁰⁵³

 

-------

¹⁰⁵³ Neusner (ed.), ‘The Babylonian Talmud, A translation and Commentary’ (2010); see also Neusner (ed.), ‘The Jerusalem Talmud, A Translation and Commentary’ (2006), both published by Hendrickson.

[Resource Manager]

Flavius Josephus

• Josephus & Whiston. (1996). The Works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. Hendrickson.
  

This is the standard English edition of Josephus, as translated by 18^th century Biblical scholar (and friend of Isaac Newton), William Whiston. Each text is catalogued with a book number, section number, and paragraph number for ease of reference.

 

Some style guides require all of these to be cited, but a common citation method (as used for example by the Westminster Theological Seminary, and found in many academic journals), is to omit the section number and give the reference in the form ‘[abbreviated book title].[book number].[paragraph number]’. Thus ‘Wars. 5.199’ refers to Josephus’ book ‘The Wars of the Jews’, book 5, paragraph 199. This is the citation method followed in this work.

 

Some electronic editions of Josephus do not include the paragraph numbers (only the section numbers), resulting in improper citations when the book and section number is given instead of the book and paragraph number.

• Niese, Benedict. (1887-1895). Flavii Iosephi Opera Recognovit Benedictvs Niese. Didit et apparatu criticoi instruxit. (electronic ed. 2008). Logos Research Systems.
  

This is the standard critical edition (not a translation), of the Greek text of Josephus, by 19^th century German Biblical scholar Benedict Niese. It contains Niese’s introduction to the text, in which he explains the various manuscript sources he used, and contains also Niese’s text critical notes, in which he notes the various manuscript readings and gives his reason for the reading he prefers.

 

Niese’s critical edition differs from the standard English edition in various places, as the Greek text he compiled was different to the text used by Whiston.

[Resource Manager]

The Nag Hammadi Library (Gnosticism)

• Robinson, Smith, & Coptic Gnostic Library Project. (1996). The Nag Hammadi Library In English. (4^th rev. ed.). E.J. Brill.
  

This is the standard collection of the Nag Hammadi Library in English, and is the work typically referred to in scholarly works on Gnosticism and the Nag Hammadi Library. Robinson’s conclusions typically follow the scholarly consensus, and he identifies his departure from it when necessary.

Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

• Charles, RC. (ed.). (1913). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical and explanatory notes. Edited in conjunction with many scholars by R.H. Charles. (2004 electronic ed.). Logos Research Systems.
  

The standard English edition of the Old Testament apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works.

• Penner & Heiser. (2008). Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha With Morphology. Logos Research Systems.
  

The standard Greek edition of the Old Testament apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works.

 

Philo of Alexandria

• Yonge, Charles. (1854-1955). The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. HG Bohn.
  

The standard English edition of the works of 1^st century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, by the 19^th century English classicist Charles Yonge.

[Resource Manager]

Textual commentary

 

These textual commentaries were written specifically for the purpose of providing information on the social, historical, and linguistic background of the Old and New Testament texts, in order to assist its interpretation.

 

They include both egalitarian and complementarian scholars, as well as secular and religious commentators, providing a well balanced perspective, and are useful for identifying the scholarly consensus, as the volumes typically discuss the broad spectrum of academic views and translations. They are cited frequently in the relevant scholarly literature, and are used by professional Bible translators to provide commentary in the footnotes of such Bibles as the New English Translation.

 

Old Testament Commentaries

• Alexander & Baker. (2003). Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. InterVarsityPress.
  
• Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Wm. B. Eerdmans.
  
• JPS Torah Commentary. Jewish Publication Society.
  
• New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Wm. B. Eerdmans.
  
• Smith, James. (1992-1996). Old Testament Survey Series. College Press.
  
• Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. InterVarsity Press.
  
• Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas. (2000). IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. InterVarsity Press.
  

 

New Testament Commentaries

• Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Baker Academic.
  
• Baker New Testament Commentary. Baker House.
  
• Keener, Craig. (1993). IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. InterVarsity Press.
  
• New International Biblical Commentary. Hendrickson Publishers.
  
• New International Commentary on the New Testament. W.B. Eerdmans.
  
• New International Greek Testament Commentary. W.B. Eerdmans.
  
• Tyndale New Testament Commentary. InterVarsity Press.
  
• Ware, W. (2004). New Testament Background Commentary: A New Dictionary of Words, Phrases and Situations in Bible Order.
  

[Resource Manager]

Old and New Testament Commentaries

• Alexander & Rosner. (electronic ed. 2001). New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. InterVarsity Press.
  
• Bromiley (ed.). (rev. ed. 2002). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Wm. B. Eerdmans.
  
• Carson, France, Motyer, & Wenham. (4^th ed. 1994). New Bible Commentary: 21^st century edition. InterVarsity Press.
  
• College Press NIV Commentary. College Press.
  
• Freedman, David. (1996). Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Doubleday.
  
• Martin & Davids. (1997). Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. InterVarsity Press.
  
• Word Biblical Commentary. Thomas Nelson.
  

Exegetical Summaries

• Exegetical Summaries. (2^nd ed., 2008). Summer Institute of Linguistics.
  

This is a series of volumes on different Bible books, providing summaries of interpretations on each verse from various standard commentaries referred in the relevant scholarly literature. It is a useful reference source for finding a range of academic commentary on a passage.

 

Textual commentary for translators

• UBS Handbook Series; Helps for translators. United Bible Societies.
  

This series of textual commentaries on the Old and New Testaments was written specifically for the purpose of informing translators of various textual issues (including the social, historical, and linguistic background of the text), in order to assist their translation of the Hebrew and Greek text into English.

 

It is not an interpretive commentary, but a guide to the Bible translator to help them assess the text on the basis of the scholarly consensus. Its contributors include both egalitarian and complementarian scholars, as well as secular and religious commentators, providing a well balanced perspective. It is useful for identifying the scholarly consensus, as the volumes are typically discuss the broad spectrum of scholarly views and different translations.

[Resource Manager]

The following review of the volume on Genesis, provides some information on how the series presents information on each of the Biblical books:

 

‘The goal of the series is “

to assist practicing Bible translators as they carry out the important task of putting God’s Word into the many languages spoken in the world today

.” To do this they provide “

valuable exegetical, historical, cultural, and linguistic information

” (i). They thus have a much more practical than academic purpose. This is illustrated, for example by the inclusion of sections on translating ʾadam and the names of God, but none on hypotheses concerning composition and transmission of the text.

 

The layout of the commentary is to provide sections in both the Revised Standard version and Today’s English Version. Then comment is provided, usually on every word or phrase of each verse. There are no foreign languages used, nor are there many references to secondary sources apart from other translations (and E. Speiser’s Anchor Bible commentary volume), which is both boon and bane.

 

Attention is drawn directly to the text, rather than what many others have said about it, so there is more immediacy to the commentary.

A disadvantage is not knowing in every case whether the interpretation presented is generally accepted, unanimous, or idiosyncratic

.

 

The volume will probably not be the sole source which readers will consult in studying the book, but it provides a good commentary in a succinct and readable form

.

All theological libraries need the volume, and many teachers and preachers will surely consult it often

.’

¹⁰⁵⁴

 

-------

¹⁰⁵⁴ Baker, ‘Approaches to Genesis: A Review Article’, Ashland Theological Journal (31.104), 1999