[B-Greek] Poythrees on BDAG and translation theory

Ann Nyland accuratebibles at ozemail.com.au
Wed Jan 28 18:22:58 EST 2004


Hi Kenneth,

The trouble is, Poythress' statements about PATHR are incorrect, and quite
frankly, are driven by his ideology with complete disregard for the Greek
itself. His article needs to be viewed in light of various CBMW statements
that PATHR can mean only "father", "forefather". In fact, the following
statement is incorrect:
>"One would be hard-pressed (as apparently
> Danker is) to find ancient evidence that PATHR means
> parent as opposed to father, but parent is offered as
> away to be less patriarchal. "

BDAG did not offer "parent" in an attempt to be less patriarchal, but
because that is simply correct. Lexicographical disregard at a most basic
level is to be found in the CBMW and lobbyists' Colorado Springs Guidelines,
said to be set down to "govern" the translation of gendered language in
Scripture. For PATHR, Guideline 3 states, "'Father' (pater, 'ab) should not
be changed to 'parent,' or 'fathers' to  'parents' or 'ancestors.'"

The following statement appears on the CBMW "List of 901 TNIV Translation
Inaccuracies":
"4. In fact, in line with 'political correctness' in language, the new BDAG
Lexicon has already added 'Parent' as a definition of pater when used of God
the Father (with no new evidence to support this new definition, p. 787)."

Yet BDAG have not given a new definition - parent has been set down as a
meaning of PATHR as long as I remember from right back many years ago in my
first weeks as a classical Greek student, and it appears more so in
Hellenistic times. P.J. Sijpesteijn, Tyche 2 (1987) 171-74 lists instances
in the papyri where a singular woman is called PATHR. For meanings of PATHR
other than "father", see Appendix 1 to G.Dagron/D.Feissel, Inscriptions de
Cilicie, Paris, 1987, 215-220; C. Rouchev, Aphrodisias in Late Antiquity,
JRS Monograph 5, ) London, 1989), nos. 42-43, and pp. 77, 101. BDAG has not
added "parent" to its listings for PATHR due to any alleged politically
correct agenda. They have added it as it is correct. In 1877, in
pre-feminism times, George Autenrieth's Homeric Dictionary listed the
meaning "ancestor" under the entry for PATHR. The Liddell-Scott lexicon,
first published in 1843 (I think it was then??), also listed the meaning
"ancestor" under its entry. They can hardly be accused of being driven by
feminist agendas or for a desire for political correctness.

It is noteworthy that (the old) BAGD had "ancestor" under their listings for
PATHR contrary to the lobbyists' Colorado Springs Guidelines, but were not
accused of being driven by a PC agenda then.

At any rate, terms such as PATHR, ADELFOS, hUIOS, were commonly used to
indicate social relationships in non related people. (Btw, Hesiod, Homer and
Aristophanes used pater as "origin".) Poythress does not appear to be aware
of this fact. Poythress' sometimes coauthor and fellow lobbyist, CBMW main
lobbyist (along with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) Wayne Grudem, states
"Another solution was necessary, so the NRSV in this case decided to keep
the singular nouns but change 'brother' to 'member of the church'... the
strong nuance of membership in a family is lost when 'brother' is deleted."

Of course, there is no nuance of membership in a family when ADELFOS is used
as fellow member of an association. To state that "fellow member" is an
incorrect meaning of ADELFOS is an error at the most basic level.

When reading works by Poythress, Grudem, and their fellow members (ADELFOI!)
it is helpful to remember that they are part of a highly active lobbyist
group which has successfully had a Bible version withdrawn from sale, and
also lobbied hard, publically, and vocally against the NRSV and continues to
lobby vehemently against the TNIV. It is also important to note that Grudem
insists that none of the LS entries for ANHR are inclusive of women, even
"man as opposed to monster", "man as opposed to gods". The lobbyists present
a confusion between the original languages and the English, which is
difficult to explain, but easy to see. The following quote by Grudem should
help:
"...throughout the NRSV the human race is no longer called 'man.' The
majestic, noble name which God gave us as humans at the beginning of
creation - the great and wonderful name 'man' - is no longer our name in the
Bible....  Feminist pressure has renamed the human race. We are now to be
called 'humankind,' instead of the name God gave us."

By the way, this has nothing to do with translation theory. Translation
theory in gendered language would apply if one uses inclusive language in
this society of this time, despite the exclusiveness of gendered language in
the NT. The words on which the lobbyists focus were in fact inclusive in the
original languages of the NT, but the lobbyists state incorrectly that they
were not and attempt to confuse the matter by presenting a confusion of
Greek with English. In the English language people have a choice: they can
use either "mankind" and "humankind". This is their personal choice which
they are free to make and this is where translation theory comes in.
However, Grudem, Poythress, and their fellow lobbyists go further in
implying that these are the actual words in the Greek (or Hebrew) as
evidenced by Grudem's above statement about the human race. Yes, it doesn't
make sense, but does distance the reader from the facts of the matter.

Poythress and Grudem state that certain Greek words are used only of males.
They are incorrect, and at a basic level. When the lexica clearly contain
evidence with which their incorrect statements do not agree, they write
articles against the lexica and have them published on their website or in
their own journals. Grudem has also complained publically that the Louw-Nida
lexicon doesn't work like other lexicons as it groups according to "word
meanings", but this should not surprise anyone who has read its title, "The
Louw-Nida Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains." Thus it is not a matter of
translation theory, it is a black-and-white, yes-or-no, right-or-wrong
matter about basic Greek word meanings which are incorrectly represented.

Poythress and Grudem wrote a book entitled "The Gender-Neutral Bible
Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words" (2000) in which they
state that the English words "he" and "man" are theologically necessary.

I hope this provides a little bit of context for Poythress' article.

Ann Nyland


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Litwak" <javajedi2 at yahoo.com>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:32 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Poythrees on BDAG and translation theory


>    Recently, there was a post about an article in JETS
> by Poythrees on BDAG.  Now I've had a chance to read
> the article, and I wanted to make a comment because I
> think that Poythrees makes an important point or two
> to be born in mind when working with the Greek NT.  I
> would preface this by saying that the article is the
> opposite of what I expected.  I find Poythrees's
> views, expressed elsewhere, on _translation_ to be
> quite unacceptable, as he seems hung up on the Greek
> gender of a word, and unable to disentangle that from
> the potential connotation of the word in a given
> context. (If I rigorously followed his approach, the
> NT would not be for women because there is hardly any
> place where any statement is made for those of the
> female gender).
>
>    Poythrees critiques BDAG for failing to give the
> semantic meaning os three words, PATHR, ADELFOS and
> IOUDAIOS, and instead giving extended "meanings" and
> glosses for ideological reasons, in spite of Danker's
> disapproval in the introduction of doing this exact
> thing .  The point at issue, which is why I'm posting
> this, is that there is a vast difference between what
> a word's semantic domain is for its original
> author/hearers/readers and what might be appropriate
> as a "translation" (a slippery word at best) in a
> target language in a different time period and
> culture.  It appears that BDAG has not observed this
> distinction.  One would be hard-pressed (as apparently
> Danker is) to find ancient evidence that PATHR means
> parent as opposed to father, but parentis offered as
> away to be less patriarchal.    Now, one might wish to
> justify "parent" as an appropriate "translation" in a
> modern English version (I wouldn't but some may), but
> that is not the same as saying that  someone in the
> 1st century who is fluent in Greek would have ascribed
> this meaning to PATHR.   Similarly, one looks in vain
> for Danker's justification for extending ADELFOS to
> "member."  Most inappropriate is Danker's rendering of
> IOUDAIOS as "Judean."  This word almost always
> referred to "Jew" and inventing this meaning, which is
> wholly inappropriate in the vast number of
> occurrences, goes way beyond giving the meaning of the
> word, which "Judean" is not, and inventing a
> "translation to fit an ideological agenda, which
> Danker said shouldn't be done.
>
>     Again, one might, in a given context, "translate"
> IOUDAIOI as Judeans or Jewish leaders or something
> else, but that's a far cry from telling users of BDAG
> what the word means.
>
>     THis is important because it reinforces my
> perception that a lot of the "meanings" in BDAG  and
> even BAGD are not part of the given word's semantic
> domain but a theological/ideological decision (wishful
> thinking?) on the part of the lexicographer.  Since
> our community has at least one lexicographer in it,
> Ann, I'd be really interested in her thoughts about
> the difference between the meanings a lexicon should
> list and the way the words might be translated in a
> target language.  Certainly, what BDAG has done with
> IOUDAIOS should give one great pause before affirming
> that "BDAG said it, I believe it and that settles it
> for me."  I'm not kidding.  I see discussions here and
> elsewhere in which the "trump card" is what BDAG says
> the word means.  Case in point:  my question some time
> ago about lingusitic analysis of PLHROFOREW.  BDAG and
> its predecessors invent a "definition" out of the air
> of "fulfillment," even though that cannot be justified
> from the word's use elsewhere (I've examined them
> all).  Since the words Poythrees chose are readily
> testable, it makes me very nervous about trusting
> anything in BDAG.
>
> Kenneth Litwak, Ph.D.
> Affiliate Faculty
> Southwestern College
> Wichita, KS
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list