Perspectives in Translation is a blog that Bible Gateway and The Gospel Coalition has jointly started to host discussions on English Translations. The aim, the blog says, is to “help readers understand their Bibles more clearly and learn to love God's Word more deeply. And we pray that careful attention to Scripture will excite readers to behold God's glory as he has revealed himself to us in our own language.”
The blog has “convened a team of world-class scholars representing different versions of the English Bible who will address specific passages from the Old and New Testaments and answer questions about the translation process.” Currently, Colin Hansen, the editorial director for The Gospel Coalition, is asking the panel to identify who the teachers Paul had in mind in 2 Timothy 2:2.
Hansen asks “Though not quite the flash point that 1 Timothy 2:12 has become in the gender debate, 2 Timothy 2:2 presents a challenge for contemporary translators. Several modern Bible versions, following the KJV, identify the teachers Paul describes in this verse as men. The word Paul writes here is anthropois, which commonly refers to men. But some newer versions, including the updated NIV, identify them as people. What accounts for the difference? I asked our panel of scholars: 'How should we identify the teachers Paul has in mind in 2 Timothy 2:2?' ”
Michael Bird of Crossway College in Brisbane, Australia, Ray Van Neste of the R. C. Ryan Center for Biblical Studies at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee and Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary in Littleton, Colorado answers this question as follows.
Bird’s position is that women “have a part in the didactic life of the church [that] is incontestable, and I would maintain that, with certain restrictions, it can definitely take place in the company of men”. Hence he says he has “no problem with the translation “entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (TNIV).”
Neste makes a very succinct argument for the complementarian view based on two key issues. First, he says that the Greek word, anthropos “can be used in a gender specific way or in a gender non-specific way.” Since “the word itself is not determinative, “ he argues “we must look to context.” Thus the second issue he notes is the context. He affirms that both men and women “should be taught the Scriptures and have a role in passing on the faith.” However Neste points out that ”the context in 2 Tim 2:1-7 seems to involve not general discipleship but the training of the next generation of leaders”, which he believes “has been forbidden to women in 1 Timothy 2.” Hence he argues that “it is best to understand anthropos here as referring to men”
Blomberg believes that translating 2 Timothy 2:2 with “faithful people” does not in any way infringe on those restrictions, which complementarians believe the Bible puts forth for women. However he believes if a translation retains the expression “faithful men” in 2 Timothy 2:2, then “fewer and fewer English-speaking people will naturally assume this is the old-fashioned use of a generic ‘men.‘” Hence he concludes by saying “unless some new discovery made it possible for scholars to achieve consensus beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul had only males in view in this verse, the only legitimate translation, that leaves all options open, is “people.”
In conclusion, it can be said that the word used by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:2 is anthropois (plural) and not anthropos (singular) and almost all scholars are in agreement that when used in plural anthropos is gender inclusive. Therefore it would be right to translate it as ”faithful people” in 2 Timothy 2:2. However this does not suggest in any shape or form that Paul is an egalitarian. For elsewhere when he is dealing specifically on leadership in the church, he explicitly forbids women from teaching (1 Timothy 2). Hence 'teaching' in 2 Timothy 2:2 seems to be dealing with teaching in general and not specifically teaching as an elder. Thus lexical argument is in favor of “faithful people” while doctrinal argument is in favor of “faithful men” and translators seem to be caught in between.
