The Vocative Can Be Quite Provocative...

And I think this is unfortunate. By avoiding the sting of "slaves" they deaden the impact of Scripture. People who don't read "slave for doulos then fail to understand the harshness of the society of the 1st century Roman empire. They are likely to read back into the Bible their own cultural norms.

The typical American is pretty ignorant about other cultures, especially ancient cultures. We don't do them any favors by disguising Biblical culture as a modern first world society.

 

Let me put it this way. The writers of the NT could have easily written "Brothers and sisters," but they did not. James 2:15 is a case in point. Why did they just say "Brothers" then? It is easy to say it was a generic term, but I have to have linguistic evidence to convince me. Where in the NT or other 1st century documents is it obvious

For that matter, I think chessic has pointed out clearly that in modern English "Brothers" can mean both men and women. A case in point is calling the US Supreme Court "Brethern" though there is a woman on the court. So why by add a word to the clear text of Scripture?

I don't think your theology is liberal at all. I was trying to drive home my point that the "Brothers and sisters" translation was driven by a philosophy foreign to the Word of God. Sorry for any offense caused.

I am a firm believer in letting the text stand as it is and not interpreting it for the reader unless it is absolutely necessary. I think the average reader of the Bible is perfectly capable of reading "Brothers" and thinking, "Okay, I guess that's just how they talked in the first century. But they must have meant the women in the church could read the epistle too--if they knew how to read, that is."

 

I would agree with this to a point. I would rephrase it slightly, though. Culture at one level will affect our translation, whether we want it to or not. The challenge is in realizing when and how our translation is affected by our culture, and then deciding whether that cultural influence provides for a good translation, or whether it obscures the culture of Bible times.

In our Japanese translation we are using some of what is called keigo, or "polite language." For example, to have Jesus "heal" with the verb in the passive form doesn't make the meaning passive, it makes it respectful towards Jesus. Japanese people invariably use keigo in their daily speech.

Now here is something interesting. Uncle Miya, my Japanese translation partner, thinks I am opting for too much keigo. He would like to get rid of it all on the grounds that the Greeks didn't use it. However, one of my editors (a brilliant Japanese speaker, by the way) believes I should use more of the polite language, though he is a strong IFB Fundamentalist and believes in translating as literal as possible. My own view is that though the Greeks did not use keigo per se, the average Japanese reader would not be able to internalize the message if no keigo is used. (You should hear Japanese people speak what they think is good English when they have been taught that English has no politeness!) :type:

 

I think that it is instructive to see that the only time that adelphai (femine plural of adelphos) is used it is explicitly used with reference to females (Matt 13.56; Mark 6.3; and John 11.3).

There are obviously some times when adelphoi means only males, such as in Mark 3.32 when the brothers of Jesus are in view. But when a church or the readers (listeners) to a document are being addressed, then clearly both sexes are in view.

 

I disagree. They are separate words even if they sound similar and have the same root.

I'm saying that first century society was inherently "sexist," and to ignore that in favor of 2008 conventions is not the way I would translate.

I don't see how you can say it is a fading case when John Grisham's book The Brethren used the term as its title as recently as 2000. Google "Brethren Supreme Court" and you get 200,000 hits. Hardly fading!

It's my view that this rendering is influenced by feminism, since it doesn't appear in any translation prior to very recent ones. This is not to say that a translator that renders it this way is consciously giving a feminist rendering, only that he is influenced by feminism (perhaps even without knowing it).

The originals, of course.

There are good men on both sides far more knowledgeable than I am. I'm sure we're not going to solve anything in our little forum, but we each have to do what we believe in.

 

Glad you brought this up. In the LXX we have adelphoi autou kai adelphai autou in Job 42:11. So there was a usage where "brothers and sisters" could be literally translated.

 

Sure, but are you trying to suggest that adelphoi only means males? That would be hard to do, especially considering that we know for a fact that there were female members of some of Paul's churches.

 

Well, if I have to answer. I'm suggesting it, yes. But I'd have to do a lot more research to make my suggestion into a stated opinion. Alas, I don't really have time to do the research right now. Some of the questions that would have to be researched (and maybe we can't even find the answers):

(1) In the Greek city states, was the ekklesia male only?
(2) In Roman democracy, were women allowed to vote?
(3) How is adelphoi used in the papyri?
(4) How far did statements like that of Paul in Gal. 3:28 go towards giving women equality in the church?
(5) Why do we assume there was gender equality in the 1st century church? Do we really know, as you say, that the women were actual members?

You know, the vast majority of societies down through history have been very "sexist." Women are truly oppressed when Christ is not known. When missionaries hit a society women are always uplifted. To give just one example, study suttee in Indian history and how William Carey influenced its abolition.

I'm always amused when Americans come to Japan and look at it through their feminist-colored glasses. Years ago Jane Fonda came to Japan, got dressed up in a kimono and said how wonderful Japanese women were. If she had only known how "sexist" Japanese men are she would have had a coronary.

Now all this may seem contradictory to some, but it is not. I oppose feminism, especially so-called Biblical feminism, but I believe in treating women as what they are: one of the best ideas God ever had! :thumbs:

 

I'm not assuming gender equality, that's obviously not the case in the first century, nor is it today (unfortunately). What I am saying is that Paul had females in mind when writing his letters. There are females named in both Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Philippians; thus the usage of adelphoi in those letters at least seems to be inclusive.

 

But can it be proven that 1st century church membership always included women, or is it possible that women were not bonafide members? Our 21st century pre-understandings make us want to believe that women were members, but were they really?

And of course I think they should be members based on Paul's writings, but I'm not a 1st century male Christian, fresh out of the heathenism of a 1st century Corinth, for one example, thinking that the only religious use of women was as temple prostitutes.

 

Here's something for research. Why does Paul sometimes say "brothers" and sometimes "saints" in his epistles? Is there significance to this in light of what we've been discussing? Look at Ephesians, for example. The greeting is to "the saints," not "the brethren." The word "saints" appears 9 times, but "brothers" only twice and "brother" once.

 

Bravo TCG . Your posts #35-39 are on the mark . This is not a feminist issue -- it's common sense .