RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Do any of the various editions of the NASB have subordination language in them (either gender or Trinitarian)?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you have any examples, or examples from other translations, you are looking for?
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Luke 10:29 ESV (italics mine)
Either way, I would caution against using Miller as an authority in this area. As I am sure you know, she has a strong enough beef with the writings and teachings of men like Wayne Grudem that, in my opinion, it very clearly compromises her ability to give a fair and balanced analysis of this particular matter. In short, I think she is simply too prejudiced and has too much of a clear agenda to be reliable. For one thing, her saying "all of the other occurrences, heautou/emautoú is translated as 'himself, herself, itself'" is simply an error.
I do, too. Absolutely. It ought to be opposed vigorously. I just think she has other birds she is trying to stone.In terms of full disclosure, I share (or exceed) her hostility towards subordinationism in the Trinity.
ⓒ freq. used w. prep. ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ of my own accord, on my own authority J 5:30; 7:17, 28; 8:28, 42; 14:10; of my own free will 10:18. ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ on my own authority 12:49. εἰς ἐμαυτόν for εἰς ἐμέ 1 Cor 4:6. ἐν ἐμαυτῷ to myself Hv 1, 2, 1; 3, 1, 5; 4, 1, 4. περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ J 8:14, 18; Ac 24:10. πρὸς ἐμαυτόν J 12:32; 14:3; with me (Aristoph., Ran. 53) Phlm 13. ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ 2 Cor 12:5. ὑπʼ ἐμαυτόν under my authority Mt 8:9; Lk 7:8.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 321). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
For what it's worth, the BDAG notes the following:
Note that the BDAG points out that when the word is used in the prepositional statement ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ that it is rendered as "of my own accord" or "on my own authority".
Not defending any study notes I haven't read, but I think this is a case where a person with very little Greek knowledge is asserting some sort of "singe use" of a word and ignoring idioms or other uses of how the word is used.
You can see it as saying, in essence, that Christ or the Spirit don't "stand apart" or are in merely their "own counsel" but they are in accord with the Father
I think a lot more work would need to be done to prove that the translators were "infected" by ESS in the words they used to communicate ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ.
I'm not defending the translation, per se, but it may not be a slam dunk case that ESS was surreptitiously inserted. Like any translation, it should be tested against the original Greek and there is a good case that an alternative rendering is better. I'm not arguing for the "on my own authority" reading, but there is even a way to understand that prepositional phrase in a manner that communicates that Christ (or the Holy Spirit) is not just "doing his own thing". The emphasis in the text is the unity of the Persons. A good exegesis would focus upon this aspect and not run afield to notions of eternal subordination.I grant what you are saying, but given that the editors openly pushed ESS and misread a number of theologians on the point, it's one of those things that you can't not see.
I'm not defending the translation, per se, but it may not be a slam dunk case that ESS was surreptitiously inserted. Like any translation, it should be tested against the original Greek and there is a good case that an alternative rendering is better. I'm not arguing for the "on my own authority" reading, but there is even a way to understand that prepositional phrase in a manner that communicates that Christ (or the Holy Spirit) is not just "doing his own thing". The emphasis in the text is the unity of the Persons. A good exegesis would focus upon this aspect and not run afield to notions of eternal subordination.
That's an insinuation of motive for which the burden of proof would lie on the accuser. Given that there's a good case to be made for the ESV's translation choice in this particular passage, and that by your own admission you would accept this without question from someone not-Grudem, wouldn't it be best to choose better evidence to present to the court?If any other theologian did this, I would grant what you are saying. Even someone like Norman Geisler, who nominally defended EFS (though if you read what he wrote, I don't think he really thought it through), and if Geisler, not Grudem, were in charge, I would probably grant it as an innocent translation. Geisler wasn't necessarily pushing an agenda.
That's an insinuation of motive for which the burden of proof would lie on the accuser. Given that there's a good case to be made for the ESV's translation choice in this particular passage, and that by your own admission you would accept this without question from someone not-Grudem, wouldn't it be best to choose better evidence to present to the court?
To use a crude analogy, it's tantamount to questioning the statement "2+2=4" because Hitler said it.
Bible Gateway has the 1995 and 2020 editions of the NASB. Bible Hub has those as well as the 1977. The NT, Psalms, and Proverbs of the Legacy Standard Bible (the "MacArthur revision") are available online, with the OT slated to follow this fall.Do any of the various editions of the NASB have subordination language in them (either gender or Trinitarian)?
Except that there's other plausible warrant for that translation, so we're back to guessing at motive. So many heresies are rooted in proof texts that are isolated from the whole council of Scripture, so there will always be verses that, when correctly translated, appear to feed into a certain heresy.I am not saying it is logically wrong. That would be a genetic fallacy. I am saying the people who updated it have a specific doctrine of God and the update conveniently matches that doctrine of God.
The renderings in question originated from the RSV, though, not the ESV.I am saying the people who updated it have a specific doctrine of God and the update conveniently matches that doctrine of God.