With the caveats above, Dr. Roberts’s summary of the state of the question regarding early Christology is good and worth a read.
A minor fisking, and a good list of articles. Here’s the link.
Last week I raised the issue of how to translate the phrase “faith in Christ”. If you remember, the Christ is genitive so could be translated “faith of Christ”.
Happily, there has been a series of articles posted on this issue and its translation in the new NIV. There’s the Introduction by Collin Hansen, and answers from:
More discussion of the new NIV, and in particular the translation of Romans. It’s argued that the NIV 2011 is influenced by the New Perspective. Go read.
The article focuses on the work of Gabriele Boccaccini and Ben-Zion Wacholder. It’s clear at least that Boccaccini was not interviewed, or the author would have worked out that he is a man.
A series of articles dealing with translation issues. So far, there have been a couple of questions which are then answered from a variety of perspectives:
The text of the new NIV has been released on biblegateway, and the debates have begun on the blogs. Unsurprisingly, it is the issue of gender inclusivity which has attracted attention but there are other significant revisions too. Of which more later. Possibly.
There is one text which I’d like to look at, as I cannot find a discussion elsewhere on the web. It is in Hebrews 2 and the NIV 2011 renders it as:-
5 It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But there is a place where someone has testified:
“What is mankind that you are mindful of them,
a son of man that you care for him?
7 You made them a little lower than the angels;
you crowned them with glory and honor
8 and put everything under their feet.”
In putting everything under them, God left nothing that is not subject to them. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to them. 9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
As you will see, the translators have decided to make the “man” of verse 6 inclusive by translating as “mankind” which results in plural “them” and “their” in verses 7 and 8. Fair enough. Man often refers to the human race in the Old Testament and I’m sure the psalmist is making this point in Psalm 8, which is from where the quote is taken.
Now, updating gender specific language seems eminently sensible to me. Language has evolved over the years and now ‘man’ is understood to be gender specific whereas in previous generations it was seen as the human race.
But here’s the thing. The New Testament often makes use of the Old Testament to make certain points about Christ, and in the beginning of Hebrews the author is keen to show that Jesus is superior to the mediators of the OT covenant (angels, Moses, prophets etc.). Most of chapter 1 has argued that the Son is greater than the angels, and chapter 2 continues the argument. To do this, the author has quoted the text from Psalm 8 which he interprets as speaking of Jesus.
Here’s the logic. Psalm 8 talks about a ‘son of man’ (hint, hint) who was made a little lower than the angels (= the incarnation) but who was then glorified (= resurrection/ascension) and everything (including the angels) was put in subjection under his feet. Therefore, the Son is greater than the angels.
However, the use of inclusive language here masks this interpretation and instead makes the passage speak of the human race. You can compare the three different NIV versions here to get an idea.
This is one of those instances where I would suggest not using inclusive language and putting in an explanatory footnote to say why.
Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period.
This is from C S Lewis’ introduction to ‘On the Incarnation’. Read the whole introduction, which is well worth thinking through.
There is an assumption – often unchallenged – that we stand at the bleeding edge of knowledge, and that our values and morals are better than those of previous generations. Why?
The Dead Sea scrolls will soon be available to anyone with an internet connection.
So, historically, the NT represents the inclusiveness that characterized earliest “proto-orthodoxy” (as I’ve noted in my chapter on “Proto-Orthodox Devotion” in Lord Jesus Christ, 563-648). For Christians thinking about diversity among themselves today, there just might something there worth pondering.