@gilbertculloden87

6 months ago

This is a deeply misleading video and you appear to have assumed malice and prejudice rather than acknowledge the sincere scholarly disagreement as to how these verses should be rendered. Whether you agree or disagree, all of the ESV translations you have cited are legitimate renderings of the texts. First, in Genesis 3:16, the word at issue is not the preposition אֵל but the Hebrew word for "desire" תְּשׁוּקָה - teshuqah). This is a very rare word that appears in the Old Testament only three times (Gen. 3.16, 4.7, Song 7.10). However, the use of the word in Genesis 3:16 is closely paralleled to its use one chapter later in Genesis 4:7, and that is the best place to look to figure out what it means in Gen. 3:16. In Genesis 3:16 Eve is told her desire will be for/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) her husband and he will rule over (מָשַׁל)her. In Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door and that sin's "desire is for you/contrary to (תְּשׁוּקָה) you, but you must rule over (מָשַׁל) it." Note the identical pairing of "desire" and "rule" in both passages. Whatever "desire" means in one it probably means in the other. Some would read the "desire" in Genesis 3:16 as sexual desire, but that is impossible in Genesis 4:7 (not to mention that would make a woman's sexual desire for her husband a curse, which contradicts the rest of scripture). Instead, "desire for" in both passages seem to be the desire to overcome/control. This is certainly the best interpretation of Genesis 4:7 and makes the most sense in Genesis 3:16. Indeed, it has been argued that even the usage of the word (תְּשׁוּקָה) in Song of Solomon 7:10 conveys the desire to control/dominate in the man's desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman. Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83. I think the NET's rendering of Genesis 3:16 "you will want to control your husband" is probably the most accurate to meaning of the Hebrew, but the ESV's "your desire will be contrary to your husband" is still much better than the traditional "your desire shall be for your husband." Either way, the ESV reading is certainly justifiable and has scholarly research to support it. As an aside, I find Ben Witherington's take on gender issues unconvincing at best and intentionally biased at worst (likely as an outgrowth of trying to make the text fit his charismatic views, but that's another topic entirely). Second, to read the γυναῖκας in 1 Timothy 3:11-12 as female deacons seems to do violence to the natural reading of the text. To interpret it in this manner requires us to assume that Paul wrote 1. a series of qualifications for male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-10, 2. a separate verse of qualification for female deacons in in 1 Timothy 3:11-2, followed by 3. a new qualification for only male deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12. It's a very awkward way of reading the text that makes little to no logical sense. It's also very strange to me that you make such a big deal about "their" not being in the Greek when (as I'm sure you know) translators always supply words that are not in the original text for clarity and we could create a massive list for every translation in existence. Regarding Romans 16:1, there is nothing inconsistent in translating διάκονος as "servant" rather than "deacon" here, since it is frequently difficult to tell whether a formal office is meant in most of the New Testament use of the word. We can certainly find inconsistencies in how this word is rendered across translations. For instance, the Greek of Colossians 1:17 refers to Epaphras as a διάκονος, yet the NRSV renders the word as "minister" in that verse while rendering the same word as "deacon" in Romans 16:1. Turning to the famous example of Junias, the debate is certainly not closed on whether Junias is a male or female name. First, we do have examples of Greek Church Fathers who read the name as masculine ,such as the 4th century father Epiphanius. Notably, in his s Index discipulorum 125, Epiphanius not only described Junias as a man (as indicated by the masculine pronoun) but also provides a seemingly independent tradition that Junias became Bishop of Apameia in Armenia. While it is hard to say how much weight should be placed on this tradition, it does imply that Epiphanius was certainly not alone in understanding Junias as a man and that there appears to have been a larger ecclesiastical tradition regarding Junias' subsequent ministry. Aside from this witness, there is also the intriguing suggestion that Junias may have been an adhoc translation of the Hebrew name Yehunni. See Albert Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yehunni,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 397–408. However, assuming that Junias is a female name, the issue comes down to whether ἐπίσημος should be read in the comparative or elative sense. I quote the NET's footnote because I feel it expresses the issue best: "When a comparative notion is seen, that to which ἐπίσημος is compared is frequently, if not usually, put in the genitive case (cf., e.g., 3 Macc 6:1 [Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπὸ τής χώρας ἱερέων “Eleazar, a man prominent among the priests of the country”]; cf. also Pss. Sol. 17:30). When, however, an elative notion is found, ἐν (en) plus a personal plural dative is not uncommon (cf. Pss. Sol. 2:6). Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients. In this instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.” See M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91, who argue for the elative notion here." Personally, I find Burer and Wallace's survey of the extant Greek evidence convincing. I would also note that the 2020 update of the NASB agrees with the elative sense and renders the verse in question "outstanding in the view of the apostles." There are pros and cons to the renderings above, but they are all legitimate translation decisions rooted in defensible readings of the texts. To claim that the ESV has intentionally misread or mistranslated the verses in question is very unfair and deeply uncharitable. All translations have biases (and there are several translation choices I could critique in the ESV). However, you seem completely uninterested in understanding the debate surrounding these verses and far more interested in impugning the motives of the ESV translators.

7 |