MetaCatholic

Suzanne McCarthy has been continuing her series of posts (most recent here) on what she calls her “Woman’s Literal Bible Assessment” (WLBA). These explore some texts that have proved divisive in interpretation and translation among evangelicals in particular. Suzanne has regularly pointed to the KJV as a translation that is more favourable to women’s use of the Bible despite its age. She sets out the specific verses (Romans 16: 1,2,7, 1 Corinthians 11:10 and 1 Timothy 2:12) and her aim in this post.

Her arguments fall, I think, into two categories. The first is verses relating to named women and their roles, where the issue is the (lack of) significance given to those women in translations. The second focuses on comments made about women’s ministry more generally.

In the first category, I don’t propose to add anything to her post on Junia (Rom 16:7) as a name. It seems to me here that a translation (as opposed to a commentary) should simply go with the weight of the argument, which as far as I can see falls heavily on the name being feminine. Anything else is special pleading.

The issues of roles and descriptions is more complex. Is Phoebe a deacon or a servant, a patron or a helper? – Rom 16:1-2; is Junia outstanding among or well-known to the apostles – Rom 16:7? Before noting why I think this is complex I should better admit my own preferences and reasons, even if other English words might be preferred:

• Junia, outstanding among the apostles. It seems to me that it is always the first step, unless there are strong indications to the contrary, that words should be given their normal meaning where it is well-attested, as modified in the context. (I’ll come back to that as a complexity)
• Phoebe: deacon and patron. In addition to the point made above, I take Phoebe here to be the most probable bearer of the letter, and this section of it to be her “letter of recommendation.” Her prestige is actually bound up with Paul’s prestige, and therefore this pushes us in the direction of the more honorific terms.

The complication comes with my phase “strong indications to the contrary.” If one believes that women can have no teaching or leadership authority in the church, and therefore can have had no such authority in the New Testament, then the overall interpretative framework itself becomes a strong indication to the contrary. Authoritative texts have to agree with what we believe to be right: otherwise we either have to change our views, or qualify their authority.

I note that having made my decision for active and senior ministry in the church in these two specific cases, I am much more likely to want to translate 1 Cor 11:10 and 1 Tim 2:12 (the second category of Suzanne’s texts) in a way that doesn’t give a blanket prohibition of such ministry. Equally those who choose to translate and interpret these verses as such a blanket prohibition, are going to have to run against the grain of the normal meaning of words in the specific texts, in order to avoid what seems to me the obvious meaning.

I will be frank about these verses, I have no idea what “authority on her head” means, nor precisely what it’s got to do with angels. Nor have I ever heard an interpretation that is fully persuasive. Here there is no doubt about the meaning of the words, but a great deal about the sense of the phrase in context. By contrast, 1 Tim 2:12 has a relatively difficult word authentein which Suzanne discusses here. Again, a fairly wide range of possibilities have been suggested, with some sense of “domineering” often being suggested.

The problem, as far as translation goes, in starting with the more general verses, is that they, and their language is somewhat obscure. It is never a good idea to use an interpretation of the obscure to control the interpretation of the relatively clear. That means, in my view and in the current state of our knowledge, the only course we can take is to give full weight to the relatively clear meanings of the verses concerning Phoebe and Junia, and seek a translation of the more obscure verses which leaves interpretation open, and use footnotes as necessary.

I am, therefore, less sanguine than Suzanne about reaching an agreed translation, since I think that the frameworks of those she is in debate with have made it essential for them to privilege obscurity over clarity, and that they are not, in fact engaged in discussing translation, but theology.