|
The
following remarks appear in a combination of outline and
text. I hope to help Bible readers sort through the
recent controversies tied to the discussion of gender
issues in Bible translation. This discussion is not
intended as an endorsement of any version. Rather the
remarks serve as an explanation of the issues tied to
these recent controversies. The goal is that the reader
appreciates the issues involved in the production of
various Bible translations that relate to gender
sensitive renderings.
1. Two Approaches to Basic Translation
Theory that Underlie the Debate
To begin with, it is important to
consider how the gender sensitive translations relate to
the bigger issues of translation theory. There are two
fundamental approaches to translation theory as a whole
(regardless of whether one is concerned to be gender
sensitive in the translation or not). These are
"dynamic/ functional equivalence" rendering
and "formal equivalence." (1) "Dynamic/
functional equivalence" means translators are trying
to render the force of the passage. Here one’s
goal is to be clear about the fuller meaning of the
passage with concern for it making good sense in the
"target" language (i.e., the language into
which the text is being translated). For our versions,
the target language is English, as the Hebrew, Greek,
and Aramaic are rendered into English. The phrase
"dynamic/functional" appears here because some
call this approach dynamic equivalence and others call
it functional equivalence, but the same thing is meant.
In contrast, (2) "formal equivalence" means rendering
the passage as precisely as possible in conjunction with
the forms and expressions of the original language
of the text. Formal equivalence means making renderings
that keep the gender, number, lexical and grammatical
force of the originating language as much as is possible
and still be understandable in the target language. This
is often labeled a "literal" translation.
In general, gender sensitive
renderings tend to embrace dynamic equivalence, while
those opposed to gender sensitive renderings prefer
formal equivalence in translation. Sometimes lines of
difference are drawn right here at the start.
But is there one type of gender
sensitive translation or are there variations in how
gender sensitive translations are made? The short answer
is that there are variations in how gender sensitive
translations are made. To really appreciate the
discussion, one needs to be aware of these types of
gender sensitive translations.
2. More Basic Definitions: Two Basic
Approaches to Gender Sensitive Translations
Descriptively speaking, there are two
basic types of gender sensitive approaches to
translation: ideological gender sensitive
renderings and translational gender sensitive
renderings. I am presenting these two terms to describe
gender sensitive renderings in order to classify clearly
the variations within gender sensitive translation.
These terms are not currently in common use, but they
best define what is going one with these translations.
They can be defined as follows:
A. Ideological Gender
Sensitivity: This type of translation seeks to "degenderize"
the Bible (that is remove all language that is male
specific and excludes women as a result). The argument
is that the Bible arose in an era of patriarchalism
(where men ruled the culture and women were seen as
less than equal). In this approach even male metaphors
for God and/or Jesus are changed to more neutral
language (so Jesus is not called "Son of Man’
but "son of a human being").
B. Translational Gender
Sensitivity: This approach renders terms to make clear
the gender scope of passages, especially when they use
an all-encompassing reference to man or mankind to
address both men and women. So, for example, the
rendering of a term that is translatable as
"men" is made into "men and women"
when the meaning intention or application of a passage
is broad and not gender specific.
Individual translations run along a
spectrum involving these two approaches. In other words,
different translations may have varying degrees of each
type of translation. Some are thoroughgoing in their
ideological rendering. Others try to keep to a
translational rendering. Some mix the two. Identifying
the particular approach requires looking at how a series
of texts are handled to see which type of rendering is
being applied. Unfortunately most translations do not
use these adjectives to describe the type of gender
sensitive renderings they are employing. The reader must
figure it out by examining a series of examples within
the translation.
However, both these gender sensitive
approaches are usually "dynamic/ functional
equivalence" renderings as opposed to "formal
equivalence." Nonetheless, ideological gender
rendering is very different from translational gender
rendering in the amount of changes it makes to surface
the dynamic element in translation. Generally speaking,
translational renderings are more restrictive and will
make fewer changes than ideological renderings will.
Dynamic equivalence translations are common today. Among
the better known are the Living Bible, the New Living
Translation, and Today’s English Version.
So how do gender sensitive
translations describe themselves? Do these descriptions
help us understand what they are attempting to do?
3. The Problem with Common, Current
Terminology about Gender Sensitive Translations
Unfortunately the three normal names
used today for gender sensitive translations do not
necessarily reveal the type of gender sensitive
translation theory applied. Common expressions for these
translations today are "gender-inclusive
translations," "gender-neutral
translations," or "gender-accurate
translations." "Gender-inclusive" means
that the translation has included the careful
consideration of gender in making its renderings. The
translation has focused itself on these passages with
special attention. Often gender inclusive translations
are ideological in their approach. "Gender
neutral" often means that the translation has tried
to be as "neutral" in the presentation of
gender as possible. These translations can be of either
type: ideological or translational. "Gender
accurate" means that the translation has attempted
to be accurate with regard to the rendering of gender.
Usually this points to a translational approach. Each of
these three terms (gender inclusive, gender neutral, and
gender accurate) tends to show up in newspaper and
periodical reports about translations, sometimes
synonymously. However, these three descriptions are
inadequate in classifying the translation’s approach
to gender sensitivity (i.e., ideological or
translational). Thus, the gender labels
"inclusive," "neutral" or
"accurate" alone do not often help us
understand how gender is being translated, despite the
claims implied in their definitions.
What is needed is an explanation of
the type of gender sensitive approach taken by the
translation in question. Of these three commonly used
terms (inclusive, neutral or accurate), the clearest is
"gender-accurate." When this term is used, the
translator or version is claiming that the rendering is
an attempt to be accurate with regard to gender issues
in translation. This means that the version desires to
be accurate with regard to the original intent of the
text. But again to really tell what gender sensitive
theory is being applied (ideological or translational)
requires the examination of a series of specific
examples.
Of course, one can have either goal
(including accuracy) and not execute it. This is another
reason why one has to look at specific passages as well
as what is claimed by the translation.
As if these issues are not enough,
there is the question whether gender sensitive rendering
of the type we have described is even worth attempting.
This is a completely different approach to the question.
It adds a third approach to the discussion beyond
ideological gender sensitivity and translational gender
sensitivity. It is the view that gender sensitive
translation should only take place within the formal
guidelines of translation with a reliance on formal
equivalence. It is this third view that leads into the
basic dispute, but it has been a common approach to
translation.
4. A Third Approach to the Question
and the Nature of the Dispute
So the presence of this third approach
raises the question of whether this type of gender
sensitive translation should be attempted at all. This
third approach argues that issues of gender should be
subsumed under the formal limits of the meanings of the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words used. This approach we
shall call the non-gender neutral school. Those who
object most strongly to gender sensitive types of
translations (in either its ideological or translational
form noted above) tend to prefer "formal"
equivalence translation theory. The non-gender approach
argues that such gender sensitive renderings should not
call themselves translations at all, but paraphrases. In
fact, the introductions to most translations do explain
their most basic theory of translation [see section 1
above]. If they do explain themselves, then they usually
will make the point as to whether they are dynamic or
formal equivalent in approach. They may even address
generally how they handle the issue of gender. But in
doing so, they will speak of gender inclusive, gender
neutral, or gender accurate to do so. These categories,
as we noted in section 3 above, are not always helpful
in describing what is really going on.
The non-gender approach also will
acknowledge the difference between the two basic
theories of gender sensitivity noted above in section 2.
In general, they see translational gender sensitive
renderings as far better than ideological renderings.
Yet they still argue that both approaches, as a matter
of translational principle, suffer from severe problems.
They argue that it is better for the vast majority of
individual passages and for the sake of accurate
translation not to try to render passages in terms of
gender sensitivity. Thus, this third school will often
oppose such translation as a matter of translational
principle.
The dispute on this point arises from
a disagreement about whether it is wise as a matter of
translation theory to render the overall scope of the
passage rather than the grammar of the individual words
(i.e., its gender and number). In other words, the
debate is over what is gained and lost in such
translations, including whether a distortion of the
meaning of God’s Word results. The gender sensitive
approaches argue for changing "man" to make
clear the scope of the passage. Ideological renderings
argue one should do this throughout translations at
every level. Translational renderings argue that it
should only be done in contexts where a broad intention
is clearly indicated by the context. The non-gender
neutral approach argues it should only be done where it
is explicitly expressed in the linguistic terms. This
third approach generally argues that where there is
doubt, leave the wording alone. Perhaps a good example
illustrating the problem in English is how we use the
phrase "you guys." In parts of the Northern
and Midwestern United States, we use this term in many
contexts as a shorthand when addressing both men and
women. So the question is, how should one translate such
a phrase if one were in the Southern United States?
Should it be left as "you guys" (so non-gender
neutral approach) or be rendered into "you men and
women" (so the gender sensitive approaches to show
its force in context). Coming to the Bible, the question
for all translators is, should a translation now moving
into a second language (from Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic
into English) leave "man" alone (so non-gender
neutral group)? (In Greek, there are four different ways
to express the idea of "man," but those terms
do not always mean "adult males.") Or should
the translation make clear that the intent of the
address is broad when the context may well suggest this
(so the gender neutral group that is attempting a
translational gender sensitive rendering)? Translators
of all schools consider these translational questions
and make judgments about the meaning and the context of
the passage. Some say, "do not ever infer a broader
context in the rendering" (so most non-gender
neutral groups), others "sometimes it is OK"
(some non-gender neutral groups in a few places and a
few translational sensitive groups), others
"wherever possible" (many gender sensitive
groups), others "always" (the more radical
ideological gender inclusive translations).
There is a recent example that is
causing much of a stir. The Today’s New International
Version (TNIV) is attempting a translational gender
sensitive rendering within its larger revision of the
New International Version (NIV). It is less radical in
its changes than most gender sensitive translations.
Most (but not all) of the committee that translated this
volume are not egalitarian (i.e., they do not
believe women can do everything in ministry or can
occupy every office). So most of them hold more
traditional, conservative views on the role of women.
They do not have a "politically correct
agenda" they are pushing. They simply claim that
they are attempting to translate the meaning of the text
faithfully. This goal was their claimed intent whether
it comes to issues of gender that are changed in the
TNIV or a larger number of other, mostly stylistic
changes the TNIV made. Of the changes from the NIV in
the TNIV, 70 percent are not related to gender issues,
30 percent are. The TNIV changes 7 percent of the NIV
text, and 2 percent relate to gender renderings.
People can discuss whether the TNIV is
successful or not, but to do so they should appreciate
the issues related to the attempt and not question the
integrity of those making the effort. So a survey of the
issues and some examples follow. The examples are
rendered in a way that someone who does not have formal
training in Greek and Hebrew hopefully can follow.
Imagine yourself a translator. How would you handle
texts in these contexts? But before we turn to specific
examples, let us very briefly consider some history of
translation that indicates that this translational
question is not a new one but one that has actually been
around for a long time.
5. The Problem of Gender Sensitivity
in Translation Is An Old One — A Brief Glimpse at
Translation History
William Tyndale published the first
English New Testament in 1526. He rendered huioi
(often rendered "sons") in Matthew 5:9 as
"children," a gender neutral rendering.
In the Old Testament, the seventeenth
century King James Version (KJV) rendered ben (or
its plural) "son" or "sons" 2,822
times, and as "child" or "children"
1,533 times, or right at 35 percent.
Hosea 2:4 gives us an example as it
discusses Gomer’s three children, two sons and one
daughter. The Hebrew of Hosea 2:4 reads translated
formally, "Upon her sons also I will have no pity,
because they are sons of whoredom." Yet the KJV,
American Standard Version (ASV), NIV, and New Revised
Standard Version (NRSV) all opt for
"children." Even the Septuagint (LXX), dating
from about 100 BC, also uses the Greek neuter term for
children (Hosea 2:6 LXX: tekna). Thus the
principle of such translation has been around a long
time.
6. Moving to Specifics about
Translations
We have many translations today in
part because different versions (1) hold various views
about the amount of formal or dynamic equivalence to
give to a translation. (2) They also differ in goals as
to the appropriate style and vocabulary level into which
to render the text. For example, children’s
translations will use a simpler English and less complex
vocabulary in rendering the text. (3) There also is
discussion on what Greek manuscript text base they are
translating. (4) Then there is the decision about how to
handle the question of gender in translation.
A. It is often valuable to use a
variety of translations, because no single translation
is perfect. This is because translation often involves
judgment on what rendering is most satisfying in a given
context (regardless of gender issues).
B. Translation must be contextual,
working one passage at a time and that process can ask
gender specific questions about the context. A
translation should not be evaluated for whether it asks
gender questions but how it well it renders each of the
passages in question in relationship to its meaning in
context.
C. Translational options in such texts
are just choices about what rendering is most adequate.
Often in the decisions the translator makes there are
both gains and losses in respect to the meaning. Often
one either removes ambiguity in an effort to gain
clarity or keeps ambiguity at the expense of clarity in
order to maintain formal accuracy. The attempt is
usually to get the best contextually driven meaning in
the most efficient way.
D. It is often the case with any
translation that individual experts in the language will
prefer the way another translation renders a particular
passage. This preference may include suggesting that in
a given translation several passages are less than
ideally rendered and could be improved.
E. It is this last point that also
contributes to the number of translations we now have.
It also explains the tendency of many individual
versions to periodically update themselves. The
translators seek to take the overall critique of their
translation seriously and hope to improve it when they
update it.
F. Judgments about how well or poorly
a translation has accomplished its goals will differ.
The success depends on how well or poorly the
translators executed their goals and what their goals
were. However, this same is true for those who critique
translations. There is always the factor in the critique
of how the critic views the translation’s goals. If
the critic thinks the goals are flawed, they will rate
the translation accordingly.
G. For careful translators the
standards of evaluation are usually twofold: (1) to give
careful attention to the original meaning of the text
being translated and (2) to have a concern that the text
be clearly rendered.
7. Some Specific Examples To Consider
in Thinking Through Gender Sensitive Translation
Here are some examples to walk the
reader through the translation process. It shows the
kind of choices one faces in terms of possible options
that a translator of the Bible faces. In the cases where
options exist, a dividing symbol of / is used. In other
cases, the options are merely summarized. In each case,
it is recommended the reader look at the few verses
before and after the text in question to get a sense of
the context. Now imagine yourself as a translator. How
would you render these texts in their context? Read the
discussions and consider the options. Then make the
call. This will give you a sense of the factors a
translator must weight in deciding on specific wording.
A. Genesis 1:26-27:
Is the context clear that the reference to a–da–m
includes both male and female (see Genesis 1:27 and
the reference to male and female)? What should be the
translation at the start of the verse? Should it be God
created man/mankind/human kind/humanity in his own
image? Is either generic "man" or
"humanity" or "human kind" is
acceptable for "God created man"? Are any of
these translations really wrong? Which is clearer? One
might argue that for clarity the rendering of
"humanity" is a better rendering in the target
language to show the scope of who is created in the
image of God [i.e., both male and female], since
"human kind" is awkward and "man"
might imply only males are meant. "Mankind" is
also a solid rendering.
A claim that a–da–m has
"male overtones" and thus the term must be
translated "man" is linguistically naïve.
Such a rendering could serve as an example of a
confusion that words have a base meaning they carry in
all their uses. This is major linguistic mistake. The
word simply has distinct senses in distinct contexts
within a range of meaning a term can possess. The
restrictive claim for "man" can under-express
the text’s sense in this context where male and female
are explicitly invoked. A rendering of "man"
with an appreciation of its generic force, however, is a
good rendering of this text.
But note the claim of error in not
translating this term as "man" leaves a
misimpression. The misimpression is that a serious error
has been committed when such is not the case. This is
why examples have to be assessed one passage at a time,
and claims of error have to be evaluated. Such a charge
in Genesis 1:27 exaggerates the meaning of the term a–da–m.
It claims that inherent male headship is indicated. The
claim is that a reference to "man" excludes
woman or humanity, or at least minimizes such a broad
reference. But how can one make this linguistic argument
when the Genesis context is clear that "man"
(i.e., a–da–m) in Genesis 1:27 includes male
and female? This claim actually may be guilty of a
theological error and risks suggesting that there is an
inherent maleness in the woman (since the term here
describes both). This reading, supposedly orthodox,
actually risks dissolving the very creative distinction
of gender God built into the creation. Ironically, it is
a distinction that the argument for male headship wants
ultimately to protect. (In this case, the error that
emerges in arguing for "man" is not intended
by the translator but emerges from trying to defend a
translational principle in a less than satisfying way.
Many translational errors are innocent like this in
their intent.) In this example, the rationale for
reading the term in its most common rendering of
"man" as male leads to a likely misreading of
textual meaning. Other renderings are better and
clearer.
A few additional cases exist where
gender inclusiveness helps a translation involving a–da–m.
Genesis 6:7: "I will blot out a–da–m
(‘humanity’) whom I have created…." The
allusion is to the judgment of the flood where both men
and women are intended. The same applies for Genesis
9:6: "Whosoever sheds the blood of a ‘human being’
(a–da–m)." This describes murder, which
is not limited to eliminating men.
B. Matthew 12:12: In Matthew
12:12, a similar rule applies to anthro–pos,
where the text reads, "how much more valuable is a
human being/is a man/are people than a sheep."
Again target language clarity would suggest that human
being is an excellent rendering. It keeps the singular
force of the example but renders the gender force
clearly. But "are people" is not a bad
rendering in terms of force. This is because the
reference to man is not to any individual man but as a
representative of the species. Yet, in terms of clarity
and smoothness, this rendering of "people" is
a little awkward in terms of the parallelism between
people (plural) to a sheep (singular). So overall, the
clearer rendering is "a human being."
Now some might argue that a Greek term
anthro–pos can be rendered "people"
when it is generic but not as "a human being,"
because as a singular it retains its focus on maleness.
The BDAG lexicon (Bauer/Danker/ Arndt/Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) names
such a rendering as possible for anthro–pos but
it does not name this verse (p. 81, 1b). Thus, such a
rendering is lexically possible here. So why not retain
the singular human being here in a context where the
issue is the value of a given person as compared to a
sheep, not just the value of a male person? This keeps
one closer to the singular, representative form of the
original Greek and still renders the term in an
appropriate lexical way. Walking through this example
shows the series of judgments a translator wrestles with
in a given text. Both gender issues and those of
grammatical number are in play in this example.
C. Psalm 34:20: "The Lord
protects all of his/their bones, not one of them is
broken." Does one translate singular "his
bones" or "their bones"? The choice by
some versions to render the singular "his" as
"their" is an attempt to acknowledge that the
Psalm is about the group of the righteous (see vv. 15,
17 [understood from v. 15], and v. 21), not just about
one individual. The righteous are both male and female,
not just male. The individualizing language of the verse
is an illustration that picks up on how God defends one
person, a man, as an example of how he defends any who
are among the class of righteous (Jesus included, since
the verse is also mentioned in John 12:46). So how does
one translate this verse?
Note that either rendering
"his" or "their" can work here
conceptually. The advantage of the singular is that it
clearly indicates the specificity of the illustration.
The advantage of the plural is that it reminds the
reader that a class of people is in view theologically
which serves as the base behind the individual example.
What is true of this one righteous person (a man whose
bones are spared) is true of all who are righteous, male
or female. Each rendering risks gaining and losing
something at the same time. Each is acceptable, and
neither is unorthodox. The mistake is to claim
otherwise. Some reject a translation of
"their" and claim that the individuality of
the messianic prediction of John 12 about Jesus is lost,
but this charge is linguistically naive. The moment one
appreciates that a class of people is appealed to here
in the Psalm, then it is clear that the text fits Jesus
as well as one of the righteous. Messianism is not
impacted by either rendering. It is true, however, that
the maintaining of the singular more clearly preserves
the example and more explicitly parallels the connection
to the passage’s later use in John 12. As such, it
might be better here to render "his." But the
other rendering is not as wrong as some suggest. The
plural opts to make explicit the connection to the group
of righteous. The ultimate allusion to Christ, though
less obvious, also fits this "broader"
rendering properly understood.
D. 1 Timothy 2:5: "For
there is one God and one mediator between God and
men/humankind/humanity (anthro–poi), the
man/person/human (anthro–pos) Christ
Jesus." Once again the options noted are not
examples of choosing a right or wrong translation. The
basic translation question is, "Is the key to Jesus’
role as mediator that he mediates for males or for men
and women?" There also is the aesthetic need to be
sensitive to the word-play in both halves of the passage
involving anthro–pos. The BDAG lexicon also
opts for a generic rendering (p. 81, 1d). Now here the
objection has been that a rendering of "human"
compromises Jesus’ maleness which also is in play
here. But the question is which rendering might surface
more confusion—a use of generic "men" or a
rendering of "humans"? Which point is more
central, the redemption of humanity or Jesus’
masculinity? Everyone knows Jesus was male! I’d argue
again that rendering the verse humankind/human is a
totally acceptable way to translate the verse. No issue
of orthodoxy is present. If one also wishes to highlight
Jesus’ maleness, a note in the margin, common to
translations, would fix the apparent oversight. Once
again my argument is not that the different choices lead
to wrong translations, but that to insist on only one
rendering in cases like this is too linguistically
restrictive, cutting the translator off from viable, and
in some cases, solid translational options. Any
particular rendering loses something of the full force
of what is going on. In fact, in some cases, like this
one, any choice ends up losing some of the overall force
because of the differences between Greek and English.
This situation can occur in rendering between two
languages and is why translators work so hard to try to
get it right and yet sometimes differ on their
translation of a given text.
E. Ephesians 6:4. Might we have
failed to translate this text correctly? Is it possible
that our propensity to read the text as male-focused has
caused us to miss the point in this verse? The BAGD
lexicon notes that hoi pateres can mean
"parents" (p. 635, 1a; BDAG, p. 786, 1b;
citing Hebrews 11:23 (to–n patero–n autou);
Plato, Leg. 6 p. 772b, plus a few other texts).
Contextually the appeal in the previous address to the
children is to honor mother and father (i.e., the
parents, see Ephesians 6:1-2). In every other pairing in
Ephesians 5:22-6:9, the same paired groups are addressed
in each half of the exhortation (husbands-wives,
slaves-masters). Perhaps the exhortation here is to both
parents and not just the father. At the least such a
rendering should be seriously considered, not rejected.
On the other hand, one could argue that fathers are
purposefully singled out as head of the home. So the
traditional rendering also can be defended. That
rendering would argue that the normal pairing as seen in
the other units is broken here because of the cultural
(and/or theological) expectation that men were the heads
of ancient households.
Note two things about this example.
First, the TNIV did not change this example. They
rendered it in the traditional form, "Fathers,…"
If gender change had been an "agenda" for this
translation, then this text would have been changed as
well. (Interestingly, the translation did not treat all
such examples the same way, as Luke 1:17 was changed
from the "hearts of the fathers to their
children" to the "hearts of the parents to
their children." Why one was changed and the other
left alone is something only the committee can explain
to us.) Second, either choice in such examples risks
missing the text’s meaning (if the wrong choice is
made), and the problem could exist going either way.
Either Paul had parents in mind or just fathers. In this
case, it is not entirely clear which is meant. This is
another reason why care needs to be given to each choice—and
why one should have some appreciation for the difficulty
of making a choice. Here is another good candidate for a
marginal note giving the option not taken in the text of
the translation.
F. Hebrews 2:6 and 2:17: The
issue here is how Jesus is described in his function of
identifying with people. Two passages in Hebrews 2 are
often discussed when the issue of gender sensitive
translations is considered. Hebrews 2:6 can read,
"What is man/a human/are mere mortals/the human
race, that you are mindful of him/them, or the son of
man/human beings/a human being/mankind, that you care
for him/them?" Traditionally this passage is
rendered "man" and "son of man" with
singular references: "What is man, that you are
mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for
him?" This is a solid, accurate rendering. However,
are the alternatives really so wrong or so off the mark
as to be a major problem?
The verse is a citation of Psalm 8,
where it is the creation of humanity that is in view.
The Hebrew term here for the first reference to man is ‘enosh.
In the second line, the reference to "son of
man" uses an idiomatic phrase that simply means
"a descendant of a human." The term is not a
title in the Psalm but a phrase used in parallelism to
the first mention of "man" as mankind in the
previous line. The Psalm is not extolling the creation
of males, but of humans created in the image of God, a
psalm in praise of God’s act in Genesis 1. So
renderings that refer to a human being would be generic
of the class of humans God has created. In addition, the
use of the plural where the singular is present in
Hebrew simply makes explicit this generic force. Now one
could honestly debate whether these alternative
renderings are really better than the more traditional
reading, but nothing major is lost in the alternative,
other than some detail of formal equivalence in the
translation. For the psalmist’s point is not the
creation of males, but of humanity. At the most, what
would be lost is the idea that humanity started with
Adam, but this is Adam as an example of the humanity God
created in his image. Ultimately Adam in God’s image
refers to a creation of the male and female. It is the
creation of that general role for all people that is
encased in Adam’s creation that amazes the psalmist.
What about the use of Psalm 8 in
Hebrews 2? Some argue that the loss of the rendering in
2:6 of "son of man" into a reference to
human(s) (either singular or plural) loses an important
christological element in the passage. However, this is
not correct. First, as we noted, the phrase "son of
man" is not a title in Psalm 2, it is a description
which simply means the descendant of a man/person (i.e.,
a human being). Second, no where else in the New
Testament does the Son of Man title for Jesus get linked
to its usage in Psalm 8. Rather the Old Testament text
that has christological significance and is cited in the
New Testament as such is Daniel 7:13, where the term is
also not a title but a description of a human figure who
receives judgment authority from the Ancient of Days (a
reference to God). Jesus turned the Danielic description
into a title in his ministry. But Hebrews 2:6 is not yet
describing Jesus. He is brought into the discussion in
2:9. He is connected to the language of Psalm 8 not at
the level of the son of man phrase but as one who
"for a little while was made lower than the
angels," that is, through the next line of the
Psalm. So the allusion back into the psalm and its
overall portrait is clear enough without any appeal to
the son of man phrase. Hebrews 2:6 is about the creation
of humanity. So the likelihood of any christological
significance in 2:6 is not great. Thus no loss of
meaning is likely in the alternative rendering, even
though one might be quite content with the traditional
rendering as well. In fact one might make a case that a
move from singulars to plurals is not necessary in this
passage. A gender sensitive rendering could be made with
singulars as well. What would remain is the
representative use of "him" at two points in
the verse. This use of the third person masculine
pronoun is a perfectly good use of English and in
certain contexts where it has already been established
that the usage is broad, can be maintained as a generic
reference, preventing some awkward English style. The
previous reference to a human being that indicates that
humanity is male and female makes it clear that such a
use of the singular is generic. The BDAG lexicon renders
the text this way for 2:6a (p. 81, 1d). So one can
render this text, "What is a human, that you are
mindful of him, or a human being, that you care for
him?" That rendering gives a good sense to the
passage. However, any one of several options give a good
sense for the meaning here, including "What are
mere mortals, that you are mindful of them, or human
beings, that you care for them?" or "What is
man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man,
that you care for him?"
What about Hebrews 2:17? Here
the text can read, "Therefore he had to be made
like his brothers/brothers and sisters/humans in every
respect, so that he might become a merciful high
priest." Now the question here is twofold. (1) Is
the point that Jesus had to be like a male to be a
merciful high priest? Or is the point that was it his
humanity that lets him be a merciful high priest? It is
his sharing in humanity that allows him to qualify. 2)
Does a rendering that includes sisters in every respect
clearly communicate in English? Although it is not
technically wrong in terms of force, the inclusion of
sisters in every respect can be over-read in English to
be saying more about the gender of Jesus than the
passage intends and as such is not as clear a rendering
as one might want. So a gender sensitive rendering of
humans here honors the plural of "brothers" (adelphoi)
yet also communicates the non-male force of the point
here. As such, it is a better gender sensitive
rendering, although brothers and sisters here is not
wrong in terms of what it is attempting to affirm.
Rather, it is less than clear. So render,
"Therefore he had to be made like humans in every
respect, so that he might become a merciful high
priest."
G. Acts 20:30: Here Paul is
warning the Ephesian elders of the danger of false
teachers arising. The issue is whether the verse should
be translated, "From your own selves will arise men
(andres) speaking twisted things," or
"From your own selves will arise some speaking
twisted things?" The premise for translating
"men" is that the bulk of teachers in the
early church would have been men, especially if the
reference is to false teachers arising from within
the elder group, which is possible in this context.
This is a good, cultural argument from the first
century. The premise for the broader reference is that
the point is that false teachers will emerge from within
the believing community as a whole, which could
mean men or women, even though it would more likely be
men. This is because both men and women teach in the
church, even if that is seen as women most often or
always teaching only women. The reference to the
"flock" in verse 30 could well point to such a
broad context for this remark. That women might fit here
can be seen by what did happen at Thyatira, where the
false teaching of one called Jezebel later plagued the
church (Revelation 2:20). Thus a gender sensitive
rendering here might be possible and is not misleading,
if the pool of potential teachers is seen as coming from
the church as a whole rather than just from elders. Here
one’s choice about the scope of the context will
influence the rendering. If the context is broad,
looking to the whole church then the rendering is an
acceptable one. The BDAG lexicon makes the point that it
is possible to translate ane–r with
"someone," although they do not mention this
passage in the entire entry (p. 79, 2; Romans 4:8 is an
example with the previous line referring to "those
whose iniquities are forgiven," so it is likely
that people, both male and female, are meant)
These examples show the kinds of
decisions translators must make. In many cases they must
make multiple decisions in one context with one term or
phrase. In all the cases, a gender sensitive rendering
was possible without diverting into a rendering that
necessarily raised a major doctrinal issue. In some
cases, it was a solid candidate as a preferred
rendering, in a few it was not. But part of the point of
the many examples is to show how the discussion is very
much a case-by-case study.
One final argument remains. It is that
the Greek noun for "man" (ane–r)
should never be rendered "human" or in a way
that includes women (either "men and women" or
a generic "those"). The claim for this
limitation is that there is no clear example of such
usage. However candidates for such generic reference to
humans or to "ladies and gentlemen" to
audiences that are mixed do exist in both the Old (if
one is thinking about the force of the Greek in the LXX)
and New Testaments. Here one could consider Psalm 84:5,
112:1, 5. Renderings of a generic "those"
(84:5) or "person" (112:1, 5) make the point
that the psalm is not just praising males, but the
righteous person, who in the text is called man as part
of a generic class. Romans 4:8 has already been
mentioned as an example. More to the point are several
texts in Acts, where a broad crowd is addressed (Acts
3:11-12; 13:38; 17:22; 19:35; 21:28; 22:1; note in many
of these examples how the nearest antecedent for the
audience is expressed in broad terms like "the
crowd" or "the people"). In each of these
contexts the address appears to be to a mixed audience.
So the application of the desired response is for anyone
in the audience who would respond. A gender specific
rendering of "men" might suggest that only the
men were being addressed. Some might wish to argue for
this limitation in this ancient patriarchal culture.
However, it really is a point that would need specific
defending, given that the application in terms of the
response called for by the speaker is for the benefit of
anyone who is hearing the speech. Here is a case for
which our modern "you guys" being used as a
shorthand form of initial address may well be the better
parallel. The biblical examples in this paragraph all
use ane–r. The options here again show the
nature of what is being discussed by each side with
reference to how to render these texts. Gender sensitive
renderings in some of these cases are likely to be
adequate renderings for these texts. They are neither
necessarily wrong nor are they doctrinally offensive.
8. A Few Examples from the Spirit’s
Use of His Own Text: The Use of the Old Testament in the
New Testament
Here we consider some examples where
Scripture is quoted within Scripture by the inspiration
of the Holy Spirit. What kind of things do these
examples show us?
A. Acts 4:11— "This is
the stone which was rejected by you the
builders, but which has becomes the head of the
corner." This citation of Psalm 118:22
changes the pronoun of the Old Testament by adding a
reference to "you" that the Old Testament
does not possess to drive home the fulfillment of the
passage in those who reject Jesus. This kind of
explanatory addition, which fits conceptually with the
reading of the text, is not too radical for the Spirit
to perform in rendering the divine text. The claim
that this is revelation so the Spirit can do it does
not make the example irrelevant, since we do not wish
to suggest that what the Spirit does is inherently
illegitimate or misleading. These are good examples of
renderings for sense (i.e., a dynamic rendering).
See also the use of Deuteronomy
32:21 in Romans 10:19, where again an
explanatory "you all" is added to the text
to make its force clear.
B. Three New Testament Texts
Citing Old Testament Texts Show How Common This Kind
of Move Is. (Note how each New Testament citation in
the examples below is introduced by a formula looking
back to what God or the human author said so the
impression is that the text is being cited and
quoted.) Key differences between the texts are noted
in italics.
1) "How beautiful on the
mountains are the feet of him who brings good
news." (Isaiah 52:7)
"As it is written, ‘How
beautiful are the feet of those who bring
good news.’" (Romans
10:15)
2) "There is no fear of God
before his eyes." (Psalm
36:1)
"As it is written (v.
10)…, ‘There is no fear of God before their
eyes (v. 18).’" (Romans
3:10, 18)
3) "Blessed is he whose
transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are
covered." (Psalm 32:1)
"David says the same thing…
‘Blessed are they whose transgressions
are forgiven, whose sins are covered.’" (Romans
4:6-7)
Apparently Paul did not feel
constrained by limitations in his rendering of these Old
Testament texts that some have suggested for such texts.
Paul makes such a move even in theologically polemical
contexts where he is making a case for his view of sin
and salvation—and the wording of texts is important to
his argument.
C. 2 Corinthians 6:18—
"and I will be a Father to you, and you
shall be my sons and daughters, says the
Lord Almighty." The italics in this verse show
where the changes are from the Old Testament text
being noted. Note here the corporate application of
the singular language of 2 Samuel 7:8, 14,
where the promise is expanded to include men and women
explicitly. This text occurs in a context where Paul
is stringing together Old Testament citations. The
original text in the Old Testament reads: "I will
be a Father to him, and you shall be a son
to me." Again Paul’s text reads, "I will
be a Father to you [all], and you all
shall be sons and daughters to me." Note
also the inclusion of the phrase "you all"
to drive home the point. Should we accuse the Spirit
of gender bias by the inclusion of daughters here, or
his move from singular to plural?
I quote Carson here because he says
it so well:
Note carefully what the apostle
Paul has done. He has taken the third-person
singular ("he will be a son to
me") and rewritten it as a second-person plural—not
only a second-person plural, but in terms that
expand the masculine "son" into both
genders: "you shall be sons and
daughters to me." Nor is it the case that
Paul is simply citing the common Greek version—some
form of the Septuagint (LXX)—without worrying too
much about the details, for here the LXX follows the
Hebrew rather closely. Nor can one easily imagine
that Paul was ignorant of the Hebrew and LXX texts.
Even the more biblically literate in the Corinthian
congregation would have been familiar at least with
the Greek text…. There are complex reasons why
Paul can argue this way, bound up with an important
typology that needs to be explored. But the least we
can say is that the apostle himself does not think
that Hebrew singulars must be rendered by Greek
singulars, or that Hebrew "son" should
never be rendered by Greek "sons and
daughters." No one, I think, would quickly
charge Paul with succumbing to a feminist agenda. (The
Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998, p. 20)
Now it is claimed by some who want to
question the relevance of this example that quotation
does not equal translation. However, one should not
ignore the introductory formula to this text which says
"even as God said" (so Paul is explicitly
citing revelation from the past in 6:16). There also is
the claim to nullify the example that we have a patching
together of passages here (and there is some of this
earlier in the citation). However, this also is less
than likely for this specific portion of 2 Samuel 7
under discussion here. The supposed patch text to get to
the plurals and to the addition of daughters is Isaiah
43:6. A closer look makes this Isaiah suggestion
unlikely. That verse reads, "Bring my sons from
distant lands and my daughters from the remote regions
of the earth." The only reason this text is
suggested as influencing the wording is the presence of
sons and daughters close together. However, the theme of
that verse and the intervening material make an allusion
to it less than likely. This potential allusion also
cannot explain the move from third person masculine
singular to a second person plural inclusive of
women. It also cannot explain a third person plural that
is explicit in including daughters. So Paul cites and
expands 2 Samuel 7:14 without feeling bothered by it,
while saying God said this (not God is now saying it as
a matter of current revelation). Even if the claim that
one should distinguish translation from quotation is
true (and it is a point to be taken seriously), the kind
of move Paul makes here within the quotation proves too
much. For Paul reports the text as God’s speech and
yet the expansion is seen as acceptable in principle.
The change is acceptable because it makes a theological
point that is in line with what God is doing. Paul
brings out the force of what God intended to accomplish
with his promise. At the least this example shows that
such a move is not a theological affront to the
presentation of God’s Word or to God himself since he
inspired the change.
Summary on this section:
These examples show that the standards are not applied
within Scripture by God in as detailed a way as some
might wish. The test of appropriateness in translation
work may not be as confined as some suggest. At least
three of the first five examples are all cases where a
single passage is clearly being cited and thus
translated. Now the additional claim might be that these
texts are Scripture, so translation constraints do not
apply to God in rendering his own Word. But the point I
am making is that what God has done has a legitimacy
that his actions would not violate. The Old Testament
text is pointed to as something that was said and that
verifies a point now being made. The legitimacy of the
argument depends on the legitimacy of the reading of the
textual point and its rendering. God through the Spirit
appears not to be bothered by the kind of limitations
some are insisting upon. So perhaps those limitations
should not be elevated to quite the status some wish to
give them. The plea here is not for the freedom to
translate as we wish or to perform an agenda. That is
clearly wrong and should be avoided. Warnings that we be
careful about translation are worth hearing and taking
seriously. However the plea is for the recognition that
translation can be slightly open when it comes to
pointing to the scope of the intended force of a text
without violating the key intention of that text. (The
same principle can be seen in the way God has inspired
the words of someone speaking, when rendering them in
parallel accounts where the same utterance is in view.
Moves between second ["you"] and third person
["this"] also happen in such texts, as Matthew
3:17, Mark 1:11, and Luke 3:22 show.) The plea is to
allow room for what God seems to allow for within the
reproduction of Scripture within Scripture itself. The
standard should be both accuracy and clarity, but with
an appreciation that sometimes judgments are being made
and that sometimes people may get it wrong without
intending to mislead.
9. Some Final Matters
Let us consider some final questions.
First, some may ask, if this kind of gender sensitive
rendering produces all of this disturbing reaction, why
bother and create a problem where one did not exist?
"Leave well enough alone" might be the cry.
One can understand this sentiment. But the fact is the
effort may teach us all to appreciate the Word better.
In addition, one may reply that there is value in
creating a translation that shows where the limits of
gender sensitive rendering may well lie by striving for
gender accuracy. One need not or should not change
figures related to God as Father or Jesus as Son (or
figures where God is portrayed exercising ‘motherly"
characteristics, either). However, in texts that are
written and intended to refer to people (male and
female) or humans as a class addressed as
"man," it can serve the church well to make
such renderings clear where they are present. This is
not political correctness (though gender sensitivity in
our culture may have made us more sensitive to the
issue). It is an attempt to render more clearly and
faithfully Scripture and its intended scope in terms of
who is addressed in many texts. (A few generations ago,
controversy surrounding the race issue made us all more
racially sensitive. The church today has acknowledged
that some of that was good for all of us, including the
church).
Second, one may ask, should we really
be comfortable with people changing the unchanging Word
of God? The question is another fair one. We need to
think carefully about what inspiration affirms. Remember
that inspiration applies to the original form of the
Word. God’s work of inspiration applies to the
production of a text. That base is what is unchanging
and is what is inspired. Translations are our best
attempts to render that product faithfully, but
translations are not infallible or inerrant in
themselves. So the effort to render the Bible more
clearly is potentially a good exercise. Such renderings
will inevitably have some variation in them because of
the complexity and judgments involved in the translation
process (as we have seen). With each new version,
judgments will be made whether that version does so as
well as another version or less well. The question
should be whether the translation is faithful to the
inspired Word. Every person with ability in the language
will surely find texts in any translation that he or she
thinks could be more accurately or more clearly
rendered. Those judgments will continue to be made about
versions and their quality as a whole as well. However,
let us be careful not to make matters appear worse than
they appear to be in evaluating these various versions
and how they are attempting to do the job. Translations
and paraphrases each have their value as they seek to
bring out the complex dimensions of the difficult task
of translating God’s Word and its depth clearly.
Sometimes the best way to see the whole of the depth of
God’s Word is to work with a variety of solid
translations. Some translations also could better serve
the reader by making more effective use of brief
marginal comments to make the dynamics of their
translation (and potential ambiguities of the text)
clearer. It is here in my judgment where most recent
efforts to make a gender sensitive translation have
failed us. They have not shown the unsuspecting reader
clearly enough where the moves have been made so the
reader can get a sense of the judgment made and what the
alternative may well be. So to all translations I would
urge that they use marginal notes of alternative
renderings more often, particularly in cases where there
is serious uncertainty or dispute about the rendering.
It is here that the New English Translation (the NET
Bible) has done readers a great service by providing
detailed notes and explanations of renderings. I am not
arguing for such detail in other versions, but at the
key places where translators know there are matters
where discussion arises.
Finally, I wish to address the
"inaccuracy" lists that are currently
circulating about certain translations. They make a
point to say that hundreds of inaccuracies are present.
They leave an impression that a serious problem exists
and that the Word of God has been badly distorted. One
should realize, however, that what is taking place on
such lists is that several classes of changes are being
examined. Usually such lists will have six to ten basic
categories to examine. Since the translation in question
has made such changes as a matter of translational
theory, one change will lead to several changes of the
same type throughout the Bible. Thus lists that speak of
hundreds of errors are only as legitimate as the
accuracy of the claim that a given class or classes of
changes should not be made. Our list of passages above
has covered a variety of these kinds of changes. We have
discussed the use of "man" as generic, the
shift from singular to plural, and changes in pronouns
between renderings. These are the key categories of
discussion. We have suggested that none of them is
necessarily wrong as a matter of principle and that each
text should be taken one at a time. Each translation
needs to be examined for the changes in question. It
would be best to let each translation speak for itself
if they supply such explanations, as well as checking
such lists before making a judgment. However, the issue
is not the number of inaccuracies such lists raise
because the number will always be high given that many
texts fall into such categories. The real issue is
whether the basic categories they discuss are really as
problematic as suggested.
These exercises in working with
specific texts help the reader grasp the issues by
taking one through the process one must undertake to
translate. Having seen some key examples, one can make a
better judgment as to whether such gender sensitive
translation is necessarily problematic in rendering the
sacred Word of God. One can also keep in mind what
factors one must weigh in coming to a decision about the
debate and about the proper rendering of the biblical
text.
10. A Plea
Let’s not make an issue of orthodoxy
from something that Scripture itself seems to treat with
some freedom. Let’s acknowledge what we are doing when
we translate. Let’s distinguish between attempts to
render with gender accuracy for translational reasons
from other efforts which more clearly try to distort the
meaning of the text on clear ideological grounds. Such
ideological renderings are worthy of harsh criticism. It
also might help that when translations make a rendering
in this direction that they supply in the margin the
alternative wording, so readers who are concerned about
the details can appreciate the nature of the rendering
and be aware of the judgment the translator made. This
can be done with very brief marginal notations giving
the alternative as is often done in modern translations.
So in sum, does gender sensitive
translation distort the Scriptures? Not necessarily. Let’s
let translators do their job and not unnecessarily
restrict their translational options in bringing out the
meaning of the text. Let’s keep them accountable to
being accurate to the Word, but do so with an
appreciation of the difficulty and complexity of their
task. If I may paraphrase, their work is hard enough
without adding burdens to them that our fathers, the
writers of Scripture, did not bear.
Three Books that
Discuss the Issues
If you wish more detail on the basic
principles of this dispute than I can trace here, see
the following books. The first two books defend the
possibility of certain kinds of gender sensitive
translations as a matter of translation theory. The
third book argues that most of what such translations do
is flawed. They are not listed in any order of
preference. All the writers are evangelicals who hold a
high view of scriptural inspiration (i.e., inerrancy).
All also hold to traditional views on the role of women
in the church.
A. Don Carson, The Inclusive
Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker)
B. Mark Strauss, Distorting
Scripture? The Challenge of Bible Translation and
Gender Accuracy (InterVarsity Press)
C. Vern Poythress and Wayne Grudem, The
Gender Neutral Bible Controversy (Crossway)
|
