Question from JM, Sweden

I’ve been living in Sweden for two months now and have come across a puzzling difference between the translations of the Bible that we commonly use in the UK and their Swedish equivalent…

And again in the Swedish bibles it reads almost word for word, but with the word women taken out and replaced with “them”. Is there some kind of conspiracy going on?

This is particularly of interest to some of my friends who are female, Swedish and have leadership gifts, but have been taught by the Swedish state church that women are not allowed to lead.

The problem here lies in the particular texts used by the translators. A variant reading of Colossians chapter 4, verse 15 does read ‘his house’, rather than ‘her house’. It was this reading that was used in the English King James Version, drawing on the ‘Received text’ that was prepared by the scholar Erasmus during the Reformation and was also used by Martin Luther in his German translation of the New Testament. As the Scandinavian state churches are Lutheran, it is highly likely their traditional translations are also based on the ‘Received text’.

It’s worth noting that the ‘Received text’ is so called because it was the complete Greek text that Luther and others received from Erasmus. Despite the subsequent claims of supporters of the King James Version, the title ‘Received text’ does not imply any greater authority. In fact it was an edited Greek text drawing on the best-preserved manuscripts of the time, prepared in virtually the same way as modern textual scholars collate Greek texts to produce the most accurate version possible.

In the past 500 years or so, a number of earlier, and therefore arguably more reliable, texts have been discovered. In these earlier manuscripts ‘Nymphas and the church in her house’ (oikon autes: literally ‘house, belonging to her’) is the more common reading. In more recent collated Greek textual versions of the New Testament (e.g. Nestle-Aland fourth revised edition, published by the United Bible Societies in 1993), this textual form is given, with a footnote recording the textual variant oikon autou (‘house, of him’). It is therefore at the discretion of the translator whether Nymphas is considered to be a man or a woman.

The strong likelihood is that Nymphas is a woman’s name and the earliest texts bear this out. It could be presumed that with the growth of an exclusively male priesthood, it was naturally assumed that Nymphas would be a man, because of the implication that Nymphas led the church that met in his/her house.

In Philippians chapter 4, verse 2-3, the correct translation is actually the Swedish one. The passage reads ‘help them’ (sulambanou autais) and the word ‘women’ does not appear. But this translation, while accurate, is slightly disingenuous because there is no other way for us to tell in translation that Euodia and Synteche are women, as their names suggest. Paul refers to them as ‘fellow contenders for the truth’ and as ‘co-workers’, indicating some level of equality in service. Translating ‘autais’ as merely ‘them’ does not indicate the gender of the two women (who were undoubtedly women), leaving the modern reader uncertain as to their gender, and perhaps assuming that such named and important individuals would be male.

So, in short, there is probably something of a conspiracy, but it has its roots way back in the early history of Christianity as women were marginalised from positions of leadership. Most contemporary scholars and translators would seek to redress the balance by highlighting the gender of these leaders who worked alongside the apostle Paul (e.g. by inserting the word ‘women’ into the translation for clarity). The fact that the institutional church in Sweden has not incorporated these findings into current practice or translation probably indicates a continuing bias against women in leadership roles that has more to do with historical prejudice than accurate Biblical scholarship.

Thanks for your question, JM.

Question from DW, USA
In regards to Genesis chapter 2, verse 18 “And the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone…”
I have two problems with this passage, and feel I have reconciled them, but I would like your opinion. Please explain:
1. The fact that man “supposedly” was alone
2. The fact that there existed something that was “Not good”
I’ve read many commentaries and a lot of them skip over and never answer these questions.

There is much debate about how literally true Genesis is, but presuming that the author of Genesis wanted to present a seamless account of the creation of the world, these two things do cause a problem. In fact, it would seem that the creation story is a conflation of two accounts, one that describes the world being created in seven days, and the other the specific creation of named human beings.

If two different stories were merged into one it would explain why God “sees” everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. There is an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which is introduced as being “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” In this second version of creation the characters of Adam and Eve, the archetypes of humanity, are introduced.

These creation accounts seek to explain not only the origins of humanity, but why humanity takes the form it does. In non-scientific terms, it is impressive that the conundrum of why a creature should exist in two distinct genders should be addressed at all. In Genesis chapter 2, the ‘weaker’ gender is introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’. There is possibly a strong element of later religious thought influencing this account. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the female gender as a life-bearer. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of Yahweh as different from the Baal and Asherah worship, it would be a natural tendency to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, created merely to ‘help’. In this sense, the idea that ‘man’ was ‘alone’ before ‘woman’ was created implies an equality of intellectual status between women and men. There are no other animals like men, except women, and the author is presumably trying to explain why that should be so and why two genders would exist at all, but without affirming the feminine gender as greater than the male.

There is a school of thought that takes both the first chapters of Genesis entirely at face value and within this literal interpretation two conflicting arguments arise. One regards the current status of women as permanently subservient to men as a result of this secondary creation (thus echoing the apostle Paul’s use of this passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 3-10). Others see this as a tremendous affirmation of women, translating ‘helper’ as ‘partner’, and claiming that this special creation account affirms the status of women as equal to men. It is, however, relatively unlikely that this statement of equality was the purpose of the author when these accounts were melded together.

Thanks for your question DW.

Question from BC, Singapore

How do you interpret Proverbs chapter 31, verses10-31 – The Epilogue on The Wife with Noble Character? Does it mean that if a mother/a wife who does not possess the knowledge and wisdom cannot be able to be a wife with noble character? It’s a demanding role. Does it mean if I have the fear of the Lord, then is the beginning of my knowledge? How do you interpret ‘knowledge’? Are there any relevant expectations for a husband/father?

The book of Proverbs belongs to a particular genre of writing called ‘Wisdom literature’. Other examples in the Bible include Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and some of the books found in the Apocrypha. These books are all quite confusing and their origins are usually obscure. One thing that can be said, though, is that this section in question is probably not meant to be a prescriptive list to be lived up to. It is someone musing on what makes a perfect wife and mother, concluding with the assertion that Godliness is the most important thing.

‘Wisdom’ in the wisdom literature, and the Bible generally, is not about human knowledge. It is about where you place your trust. Thus the person who says there is no God is a “fool” (Psalm 14) and Jesus refers to the man who builds storehouses for his crops and entrusts his future to his own plans, not taking God into account, as equally foolish (Luke chapter 12, verse 16-21). The key verse in the passage in Proverbs is verse 30: “a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.” The other attributes of the ‘noble wife’ – caring for her family, working hard, being productive, planning ahead, caring for the needy – all stem from her commitment to God.

In terms of expectation for a husband or father, the Bible was written in a culture where women were regarded as possessions and the man was firmly the head of the household, also ruling over the children. Into this culture Paul instructs Christian men to treat their wives with dignity and respect. The most relevant passage is Ephesians chapter 5, verse 22 – chapter 6, verse 9. In this passage, Paul tell wives, children and slaves to obey and submit to their husbands, fathers and masters. The irony is, of course that wives, children and slaves had no option, legally and culturally, but to submit.

The real sting in this passage falls on those who have power: the husbands, fathers and slave-owners. They have to love their wives as much as they love themselves, to ‘not exasperate’ their children and to treat their slaves with as much respect as their slaves have to treat them. This teaching has lost its radical edge in the modern world where everybody’s rights are enshrined in law, but what Paul is really getting at is challenging for men (and anyone in power) and just as the ‘noble wife’ in Proverbs accomplishes everything because she ‘fears the Lord’, Paul firmly locates the ability to live up to this ideal by emulating the example of Christ and being empowered by him.

Thanks for your question, BC.