The ESV Revision: A Stratagem to Biblically Legitimize 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?
So what was really behind this new ESV rendering, since it lacks strong historical and textual support, and since there are no current linguistic changes in English that require it? I could be wrong, but I can’t help but suspect that this was a veiled attempt to give what appears to be a more legitimate, biblical ground for the prohibition against women in leadership and ministry found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Thus, by this “fixing” of OT and NT Scripture to agree with each other, the anti-egalitarian, male dominance socio-political agenda of Complementarianism would thereby be better legitimized and enabled. As rendered in the ESV, the text of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 reads as follows:
but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn,
let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Cor. 14:34-35, ESV
Now, in English Bibles, it has been customary to translate tos nomos in the Greek New Testament either as “the law” or “the Law”—with the former translation (depending on the context) being used to designate references to the OT as a whole; Jewish oral tradition; or Greco-Roman law, while the second form is used to refer to the Mosaic Law in particular.
So by translating tos nomos as “the Law,” the ESV intends for us to understand that this prohibition is based on “the Law,” i.e. the Law of Moses. The only problem with this translation of 1 Cor. 14:34-35, as Egalitarians have often pointed out, is that nothing either in the Law of Moses in particular, or in the OT as a whole, constitutes an absolute and universal prohibition from women proclaiming God’s Word or leading God’s people in worship.
Moreover, it makes an ambiguous appeal to “the law” for women to be silent—which is strange, in light of the fact that the OT highlights and affirms the leadership and prophetic ministry of Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah. Though Jeremiah and Nehemiah condemn certain false male and female prophets (cf. Jer. 28:1-17; Neh. 6:11-14), there is no OT text that clearly forbids women from leading the people in worship, nor from proclaiming the “word of the LORD” to the people of Israel. And other than barring them from the temple priesthood, the Law of Moses certainly confirms and approves the fact that Miriam and the other women led Israel in worshiping and praising God for their deliverance out of Egypt (cf. Exodus 15:19-21 with Ps. 68:11-14, NIV 2011).
So, again we ask, what “law” is being appealed to here? And why is the reference to this “scriptural” source so vague? Normally, Paul will quote a specific text when he wants to affirm that a particular teaching or command has OT support, such as he does in 1 Cor. 10:6-8 and 1 Tim. 5:17-18. Yet he does not follow his common practice here. If he had actually meant Genesis 3:16b, then we would have expected him to quote it. Why does he not do so here?
Then, as noted by several NT scholars, there is the additional problem of the disjunctive conjunction eta in 1 Cor. 14:36, which the ESV does not translate or footnote at all.[1] When eta is used as a disjunctive conjunction, it is used “to distinguish things or thoughts which either mutually exclude each other, or one of which can take the place of the other,” and that when used “before a sentence contrary to the one just preceding, to indicate that if one be denied or refuted, the other must stand: Mt. xx.15; Rom. iii.29; 1 Cor. ix. 6; x.29; xi.14; xiv. 36; 2 Cor. xi.7.”[2] Consider the following translations of 1 Corinthians 14:34-36:
…the women should keep silence the churches. For they are not permitted to speak,
but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know,
let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?
1 Corinthians 14:34-36, RSV
…the women must keep silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak out, but
also must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says. If they want to learn
anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is inappropriate for a woman
to speak out in church. Did God's word originate with you? Are you the only people it
has reached?
also must place themselves in submission, as the oral law also says. If they want to learn
anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is inappropriate for a woman
to speak out in church. Did God's word originate with you? Are you the only people it
has reached?
1 Corinthians 14:34-36, ISV
The RSV translates the disjunctive conjunction eta as “What!,” which indicates that in verse 36, Paul is clearly and firmly repudiating the prohibition given in vv. 34-35; while the ISV translate tos nomos as “the oral law,” making it very clear that the prohibition of vv. 34-35 is based on Jewish oral traditions, and not on the Law of Moses itself.
Indeed, it is the ISV translation which perhaps gives us the best clue as to who might have been the true source of this prohibition—a Judaizing element in Corinth that evidently wanted the Jewish regulations and customs of the synagogue to be enforced, contrary to Paul’s own teaching and practices in all the churches he had previously established.
But neither of these translations supports the widespread Complementarian idea that Paul himself was the originator of this prohibition in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, nor do they support the idea that he clearly made an appeal to Genesis 3:16b as its basis. Moreover, as Kirk R. MacGregor so brilliantly argues in his article, both on the basis of the disjunctive conjunction and grammar of this text, 1 Cor. 14:33b-38 is a quotation-refutation device Paul uses to rebuke this Judaizing element: "Far from attempting to silence women, therefore, Paul is rebuking the Corinthian men for prohibiting women from speaking in the assemblies, for he regards such a restriction as tantamount to alleging that the word of God belongs properly to the men and derivatively to any woman married to one of them. Paul summarily exposes the absurdity of this allegation with each part of this rhetorical question, whose form, (not to mention the context) requires a negative answer to each part." [3]
Conclusion
So, considering all these things we have discussed, I suspect that this new ESV revision of Genesis 3:16b is nothing more than a very clever and subtle stratagem, designed to give Complementarianism a more clear and firm biblical foundation in both Moses and in Paul than it really has a claim to. If this is indeed the reason behind this rendering of Genesis 3:16b, I am amazed that Crossway Publishers and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee have not considered the warning of Jeremiah 8:8-9:
How can you say, ‘We are wise because we have the
word of the LORD,’
when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?
“These wise teachers will fall into the trap of their
own foolishness,
for they have rejected the word of the LORD.
Are they so wise after all?”
Jeremiah 8:8-9, NLT
Jeremiah 8:8-9, NLT
Therefore, a more clear and convincing case as to the necessity of this change to the ESV text needs to be made to persuade me, and many others as well, that this was a genuine attempt to faithfully preserve God’s Word as originally handed on to us—and not a veiled attempt to enforce a strict patriarchal ideology upon the people of God that, in fact, has no true biblical warrant at all.
[1] Dennis J. Preato, “Did Paul Really Say, ‘Let Your Women Keep Silent in the Churches?” www.godswordtowomen.org. An excellent article on this Pauline text, brought to my attention during an online group discussion at the BCE site on Facebook, 09/16/16.
[2] Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, 3rd Edition (Zondervan, 1970), p. 275.
[3] Kirk R. MacGregor, "1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device," Priscilla Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2018.
[3] Kirk R. MacGregor, "1 Corinthians 14:33b-38 as a Pauline Quotation-Refutation Device," Priscilla Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment