It turns out that Scottish New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall (1934-2015) was a driving force behind the NIV's redefinition of adelphoi as brothers and sisters

Under I. Howard Marshall's influence, the NIV ended up interpolating "sisters" and "sister" in the New Testament about 150 times when they didn't appear in the Greek, in order to make the NT more gender neutral.

 

But to do this it had to supply a novel definition of "brothers" to justify doing so, even though the New Testament authors were perfectly capable of writing "sisters" when they wanted to, and did.

 

An example of the novel definition is shown below at Acts 1:16.

  

 

Except there is no Greek word for brothers and sisters, and it certainly isn't adelphoi.

 

To convey this meaning the language routinely relied on compounding the two words. If "brothers" were in fact the shorthand for "brothers and sisters" as the NIV insists, it is news to the gospels, which shouldn't have bothered to say "sisters" alongside "brothers" for example in Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29f., and Luke 14:26.

 

If "brothers" means "brothers and sisters", why use "sisters" anywhere at all?

 

I. Howard Marshall (The Gospel of Luke, 1978, reprint 1986, 688) was remarkably uninstructed by the Luke 14:26 example above (If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple) in his interpretation of Luke 18:29 (And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake), where Marshall says sisters is omitted because "brothers will include both brothers and sisters just as Luke uses parents for father and mother". 

 

His authority for this is not in any early Christian literature, but in usages outside the New Testament which themselves appear only occasionally and in special contexts (e.g. when referring specifically to a brother-sister pairing, or with the classical Greek dual which virtually disappears in koine). Ordinary usage everywhere in classical and koine displays the typical male dominance of "patriarchal" society.

 

It is simply not the case in Luke 14:26 that brothers includes both brothers and sisters, nor is it justified to say brothers contains sisters in Luke 18:29 in the same way that parents contains mother and father.

 

On the contrary, Luke used parents and father and mother freely, even when parents alone would have served:

 

And when he came into the house, he suffered no man to go in, save Peter, and James, and John, and the father and the mother of the maiden. ... And her parents were astonished: but he charged them that they should tell no man what was done.

 

-- Luke 8:51, 56.

 

Marshall was straining for excuses to justify his novel definition of brothers instead of relying on New Testament and especially Luke's own usage. 

 

The fact of the matter is Luke edited out "sisters" once before when the parallels had included it (Mark 3:35 and Matthew 12:50):

 

And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

-- Luke 8:21.

Marshall strangely missed this opportunity at 8:21 to argue that brothers included the sisters on his new definition of adelphoi. Instead he says Luke is abbreviating Mark to avoid referring to the distasteful topic of the strife which existed between Jesus and his family. 

It's characteristic of Luke sometimes to compress language and omit elements, especially those which may seem needlessly repetitive, descriptive, or offensive to him.

Luke famously omits the scourging of Jesus by Pilate, which would have been a distasteful topic for Luke's Roman audience to read.

Luke tones down the coming judgment of Israel at the center of an eschatological drama from Matthew in favor of a gospel preached to the ends of the earth by Paul, culminating at the center of the world. "And so we came to Rome" (Acts 28:14).  

Luke omits "lands" in addition to "sisters" at 18:29, possibly as Marshall says because Luke is against the idea of material reward for disciples. Luke emphasizes that the gospel is good news for the poor, not the rich (Luke 1:53; Luke 4:18; Luke 7:22). Luke well understood that the cost of discipleship was saying goodbye to everything which one owned (Luke 14:33). Luke is nothing if not uncomfortable with the talk of rewards in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, to the point that he is completely non-committal about just what the "manifold more" actually is which the disciples will enjoy "in this present time". 

Is Luke omitting "sisters" twice in his gospel not because they are subsumed under "brothers" but rather because Luke just thinks that they are not worth mentioning? That dismissiveness could simply be unconscious expression of the "patriarchal" mindset of the times reflected more broadly in the language itself, against which feminists in the church have been raging since the 1960s.

Marshall was nothing if not a child of this time, as were the early Christians in theirs. 

Luke generally is omitting things here and there mostly because as the longest of the gospels he has to make room for a lot of other things which he wished to emphasize. Occasionally the hobby horse of a crank is a victim.

In keeping with most Greek speakers of the time, Luke does not think of females when he thinks of "brothers". He thinks of males. Marshall knew and admitted this, but Marshall's ideological prejudices overrode what he knew to be the truth: 

... Ian Howard Marshall, who was one of the translation committee members for the gender-inclusive TNIV Bible, has made an argument along these lines in a recent article:

What we are suggesting is that the usage is one in which sometimes the context may make it clear that the reference is exclusive and purely to males, but that the letters are addressed directly to mixed audiences, and therefore generally adelphoi is used in a way that does not exclude women, even if it is probable that the author may have been thinking primarily of the men. 

... But there is a problem with this argument. The problem is, the writers of the epistles ordinarily seem to be "thinking primarily of the men," as Marshall allows, and so his statement that the epistles are "addressed directly to mixed audiences" is rather problematic. If the writer is thinking primarily of the men when he addresses the congregation, then he is not really addressing the men and the women equally. Yet Marshall proceeds to build his argument concerning the meaning of adelphoi squarely on the idea that men and women are addressed equally, as equals, in the epistles of the New Testament. It is largely on the basis of this idea that a gender-neutral sense for adelphoi is posited by him and by Strauss. The whole argument collapses under the simple recognition that the apostles directed their attention primarily to the men, and used language which reflected this orientation. There is no intent to "exclude women," but the habits of speech reflect a male orientation.

... First, it is clear that Marshall's egalitarian vision of the early Church has prejudiced his whole approach to the linguistic issue at hand, in such a way that no careful philologist is likely to approve. Second, this egalitarian vision of the early Church is simply false. It represents an anachronistic illusion about the early Church, and not the historical fact of the matter. Despite the "trajectory" imagined by Marshall, men and women were not equal in the early Church. Third, Marshall ignores the contrary linguistic evidence from New Testament itself. Fourth, we note that his argument shows the inner connection of "inclusive language" with egalitarian views on the TNIV committee of translators. Spokesmen for the International Bible Society have repeatedly denied that any such ideological connection exists, and have asserted that the reasons for their gender-neutral TNIV are purely linguistic, but Marshall makes the connection clear. A revisionist egalitarian view of the early Church plays an important part in his "linguistic" argument. ...

When are Evangelicals going to get upset about their Orwellian woke NIV?

 

 

Maybe not until this generation passes away.

 

Evangelicals think they embrace gender equality in obedience to their god. I say they do it in obedience to the spirit of the age. They most certainly do not do it in obedience to the meaning of words, and have assembled scholars for themselves who will defend this absurdity to their last breath. They are in thrall to an ideology. 

 

For example, ἀδελφή and ἀδελφαὶ, the Greek words for "sister" and "sisters", occur about 26-times in the Greek New Testament.

 

But Evangelicals' favorite Bible, The New International Version, has "sister" about 42-times in the New Testament, and "sisters" a whopping 133-times in the New Testament, supplied completely out of thin air alongside "brothers" in order to be gender-inclusive, even for example alongside ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί ("men, brothers") in Acts 1:16, where the footnote says "The Greek word for brothers and sisters (adelphoi) refers here to believers, both men and women, as part of God’s family".

 

 ROFLMAO.

 

Compare the much-maligned "liberal" translation of yesteryear, the old RSV. It has "sister(s)" 24-times in the New Testament. It follows the manuscript evidence, unlike the woke NIV.

 

"The NIV relies on recently published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts", Wikipedia assures us, except for the 149 instances of sister and sisters in the New Testament for which there isn't a shred of evidence, and who knows what else. 

 

If you ever wondered how variant readings popped up in the Bible in the first place, the human capacity for dishonesty, pride, and self-deception on display here explains it pretty well.

 

The NIV translation project began in earnest in 1967, with origins in the liberal Christian Reformed Church headquartered in Grand Rapids, MI. Psychoanalyst Robert Stoller of UCLA was the first to formalize the split between biological sex and gender identity in 1968.

Birthed by Henry VIII's sexual sins, the Anglican Communion splits over its latest ones

 

The seeds of Anglicanism's destruction were sown in its own beginning, but no one ever talks about that anymore. A not little original leaven has nearly leavened the whole lump.

The Anglican Communion Is Coming Apart

Not even two weeks after the Church of England unveiled Sarah Mullally as the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, a network of conservative Anglicans has exploded what fragile harmony or consensus existed.

... “We cannot continue to have communion with those who advocate the revisionist agenda, which has abandoned the inerrant word of God as the final authority,” [Archbishop of Rwanda Laurent] Mbanda wrote.

... Nobody expected Gafcon to approve of the choice of Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury. The former senior nurse turned bishop previously led the project to introduce gay blessings and also represents the first woman to ascend to the throne of Saint Augustine in Canterbury Cathedral, an issue for certain Gafcon provinces that do not ordain women as priests or bishops.

... Mbanda said the Global Anglican Communion was closer to a rebrand than a new organization and that it was the revisionist Anglicans in the UK and North America who were the true schismatics. 

... Felix Orji, a Nigerian bishop who leads an ACNA diocese in Texas, said some provinces which have had a foot in both camps will have “an intense battle over this issue.”

... “We’ve been pleading for repentance, for rapprochement, and now you have a woman, and this woman is in favor of everything we’re against,” the ACNA bishop said. “And so there is no hope. If the Church of England had chosen a male who is evangelical, I don’t think that this decision would have been made.” 

... “It is important that the primacy of England should not take precedence over the primacy of Scripture,” he said. “We cannot allow our affection for England to trump affection for Christ and his Word.” 

The new feminist, dyslexic, pro-abortion, liberal archbishop will be faced with declining church attendance for some reason, the story says lol

AP reports here, except for the feminist, dyslexic, liberal, pro-abortion parts.

"Dog spotted walking on its hinder legs" heard faintly echoing somewhere in Westminster. 

 

 

Unintended consequences of Lutheranism: An unhinged band of female lunatics decorates the tree year round, but for things other than Christmas

Go Ahead, Leave Christmas Tree Up -- Decor Turns Year-Round...

 

 

Always deny there's any evidence to the contrary when promoting the virgin birth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 As does Walter Russell Mead, who says Christmas is a feminist holiday lol, here:

The early church wasn’t facing a sea of rumors about Mary’s prenuptial behavior, and if it had been, there are more convincing ways of scotching rumors than proclaiming a miraculous virgin birth. 

 Meanwhile . . .

I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 

-- John 8:38ff.

LOL Evangelical feminist wymyn throw a fit, think Connubial Christ talk is misogynist, Reformed parachurch group The Gospel Coalition retreats in fear

How dare you objectify me and call me a fertile field!

In the wake of growing controversy, evangelical Reformed parachurch group The Gospel Coalition (TGC) has retracted an article that used explicit sexual language as a metaphor for salvation. However, some say the retraction does not address underlying issues of concern. ... “They do know, right, that the idea of women as a fertile field to be planted with male sperm is not only misogynist but inaccurate? Don’t they????” tweeted author and Baylor University Professor Beth Allison Barr.

More. 

 

Rod Dreher ably defends Josh Butler from an historical point of view here.

Such discussions inevitably ignore the development of ideas within the New Testament itself.

A brief history of feminism

 

Atheist, feminist from a Texas family full of Trump supporters says Trump has ruined Christmas and turned it ugly

Here:

He ruins everything he touches. ... Now [Christmas] has morphed into something even uglier.

So it was already ugly, right?

But Ms. Amanda Marcotte obviously hasn't seen the big, ugly above-ground pool my new liberal neighbors installed next to my rear lot line. They are big Rachel Madcow fans and proponents of gun control who chose to live out here in rural America where gunfire is something of an evening ritual. Nor has the Salon writer heard the loud, drunken parties until the wee hours of the morning these liberals have brought with them, disturbing the peace. And now we've got a big ole SUV in the front yard with the hood up for at least the last month! Who leaves their hood up in the rain and the snow? It's a $330,000 house on two acres, quickly turning into White Trash America.

I sure do miss those Calvinists who used to own the property, even if they didn't think too much of me because I wasn't Dutch. At least they were tidy and quiet. And they had a beautiful lawn, too, underneath that pool.

Donald Trump has no corner on ugly.   

Donna Zuckerberg, sister of Mark, opts for Athenian ostracism (and maybe worse): Lincoln and Douglas debates = good, Socrates' debates = bad

The unemployed classics PhD (Princeton) lives in Silicon Valley with her husband and two children, and runs a much fancier online presence than yours truly. She remains discomfited that America is more Rome than Athens.

The problems with online ‘debate me’ culture:

As the editor of an online publication that runs articles about the intersections of classical antiquity and the modern world, often from a feminist and progressive perspective, I’ve gotten my fair share of “debate me” challenges. Many of these have come after I began writing about far-right interest in ancient Greece and Rome in 2016. Blocking some of my would-be adversaries on Twitter seemed to just energize them — and convince them I was afraid to engage.

A call to debate may seem intellectual, even civilized. In theory, well-structured and respectful debates are an ideal opportunity to reach an audience that isn’t fixed in its views. In reality, however, most “debate me” types seem to view them mainly as a chance to attack their opponent’s credibility. Their model is not Lincoln and Douglas, but rather Socrates: By needling their interlocutors with rapid-fire questions, they aim to reveal, as they see it, their opponents’ ignorance and stupidity, and their own superior intelligence and logic. ...

These modest men also identify with Socrates, the original “debate me” troll. The Platonic texts show Socrates pulling any number of Athenians into debates, and although some are eager to argue with him, others can hardly wait to escape him by the end of the dialogue. Plato’s “Euthyphro” concludes with Euthyphro insisting that he has to leave, while Socrates calls after him, complaining that they haven’t yet figured out the nature of piety. Many of the dialogues end when the interlocutor has been bludgeoned into submission and seems to find it easier to agree with Socrates than continue further — every “debate me” man’s dream. ...

As Laurie Penny noted last year with respect to Milo Yiannopoulos, deplatforming white supremacists is a much more successful way to shut them down than insisting that “sunlight is the best disinfectant” and allowing them to air their hateful views in a structured debate setting. 

A social Darwinist dangles a preposition in defense of materialism against feminism, with a dash of Freudianism thrown in

Some choice! Would you like the bullet in your head, madam, or in your heart?

Here:

[M]ediocrities never lack admirers among the Second Sex, who, having very little judgment, are naturally taken with the vulgar world’s appearances. Women are by nature very willing and eager status whores, although certainly this ugly truth is not something that any man wants to believe, least of all the conservative Christian, who is happy to make “a victim” out of a shameless whore-on-the-payroll like Holly Madison. In women the ordinary man is looking for a mother figure whom, however, he shall also sleep with. From a moral point of view, man has throughout his savage history been an essentially evil being. Shaped in response, woman finds that the proverbial “nice guy” is the last thing she craves. In the face of evil, woman thinks, “He is worthy.” “Nice guy,” in her subtle vocabulary, is code for wealth, and, God willing, a way to philistinism.

When there is no God to inform reality, your only choice is servitude to the distortions of full-throated ideologies.

Even N.T. Wright Has Occasionally Come Close To Saying Jesus Was Nuts

My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be. Indeed, I have come to regard such historical study not just as a possibly helpful source for theology but a vital and non-negotiable resource: not just part of the possible bene esse, but of the esse itself. Partial proof of this drastic proposal lies in observing what happens if we ignore the history: we condemn ourselves to talking about abstractions, even perhaps to making Jesus himself an abstraction. Fuller proof could only come if and when systematicians are prepared to work with the first-century Jewish categories which are there in the historical accounts of Jesus and which shaped and formed his own mindset.

-- Jesus' Self-Understanding, N.T. Wright (2002)

Western orthodoxy has for too long had an overly lofty, detached, high-and-dry, uncaring, uninvolved, and (as the feminist would say) kyriarchical view of god.  It has always tended to approach the christological question by assuming this view of god and then fitting Jesus into it.  Hardly surprising, the result was a docetic Jesus, which in turn generated the protest of the eighteenth century and historical scholarship since then, not least because of the social and cultural arrangements which the combination of semi-Deism and docetism generated and sustained.  That combination remains powerful, not least in parts of my own communion, and it still needs a powerful challenge.  My proposal is not that we understand what the word “god” means and manage somehow to fit Jesus into that.  Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross—and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word “god” to be recentered around that point.

-- Jesus and the Identity of God, N.T. Wright (1998)

When his family heard what was happening, they tried to take him away. "He's out of his mind," they said.

-- Mark 3:21

In a dull stream, which moving slow . . .

 

 

 

In a dull stream, which moving slow,

You hardly see the current flow;

When a small breeze obstructs the course,

It whirls about for want of force,

And in its narrow circle gathers

Nothing but chaff, and straws, and feathers:

The current of a female mind stops thus,

and turns with ev'ry wind;

Thus whirling round, together draws

Fools, fops, and rakes, for chaff and straws.

-- Jonathan Swift, 1713

Reason 4,108 To Avoid A Church Today

 

 

 

Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hinder legs. It is not done well; but you are surprized to find it done at all.

-- Samuel Johnson, Boswell's Life of Johnson, 1791